Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TOWCESTER RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL (ABTHORPE RATING) BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

PETITIONS (EQUAL PAY)

Miss Ward: I beg to present a petition signed by some 80,000 citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They wish to protest against the continuing injustice of unequal pay for equal work, and in pursuance of this they
humbly pray that your honourable House will be pleased to introduce legislation to establish equal pay for equal work as between men and women in the public services, and thus implement the principle which has been accepted by your honourable House in 1920, 1936, 1944 and 1952.
And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Pannell: My petition is somewhat larger than that of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward). It is a petition on behalf of 1,282,000 signatories and represents a petition from the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council, the National Union of Teachers, the National and Local Government Officers' Association and the National Federation of Professional Women Workers. This Petition is supported by the Trades Union Congress, which is on record as saying:
That this Congress is of the opinion that the General Council should now make the strongest representations to Her Majesty's Government and acquaint them with the strong demand of the whole trade union movement for tangible progress to be made without delay.
I believe the Chancellor is aware of that recent resolution.
If it were in order to do so—which it would not be—I should refer to the fact that the Petition is headed by 12 signatories of members of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, but I am in order in referring to the fact that a Motion on this subject was passed in this House in 1920 and was accepted without a Division. The Anderson Committee on the Pay of State Servants in 1923 emphasised the justice of the principle, and in 1936 a Motion was passed by this House. In 1944 this House carried by a majority of one—afterwards reversed, the principle of equal pay for women teachers. A Royal Commission has reported in favour of it since the war, and it will be remembered that I moved, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) seconded, a Motion on 16th May, 1952.

Mr. Speaker: Is all this in the Petition?

Mr. Pannell: I have armed myself with the Standing Order. With great respect, I trust that I am within its terms, because it says that I can refer to the number of signatures attached to the Petition and the material allegations contained in it, as well as reading the Prayer of such a Petition. If I am out of order, perhaps you will tell me.

Mr. Speaker: That is the reason why I asked whether it was in the Petition. It is in order if it is in the Petition.

Mr. Pannell: That is so. I will read the Petition. It says:
To the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, the humble Petition of citizens of the United Kingdom…
It says that,
Her Majesty's Government has accepted the principle of equal pay for men and women in all public services, that the House of Commons on 16th May, 1952, called upon Her Majesty's Government to announce an early and definite date by which the application of equal pay for equal work for men and women in the Civil Service, the teaching profession, local government and other public services will begin.
It concludes:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that steps be now taken to meet the wishes of the House expressed on 16th May, 1952, by implementing the principal of Equal Pay in the Civil Service, the Teaching Profession, Local Government and all other Public Services without fail during the year 1954.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.…
To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Equal Pay

Mr. Pannell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the civil servants' claim for equal pay for women is the only wage dispute between trade unions and employers which cannot be dealt with through the established machinery of negotiation and arbitration; and whether he will remove this hindrance to a settlement f this long-standing dispute.

Mr. Houghton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will now authorise effective negotiations to begin on the Civil Service National Whitley Council with a view to the introduction of equal pay in the national Government service this year;
(2) how far his recent renewal of the offer to the Civil Service Staff Side to engage in informal talks with the Treasury on a possible scheme for the introduction of equal pay into the public service is intended to commit Her Majesty's Government to implement any agreement reached.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what authority he refuses to allow the claim for equal pay for women in the Civil Service to be referred to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I will, with permission, answer this Question with Questions Nos. 3, 6 and 14.

Miss Bacon: On a point of order. At the beginning of February I submitted a Question to the Table which I was told was in order but would probably not be accepted. The Question was as follows:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the shortage of women teachers, that one of the causes is the disparity in pay between men and women teachers and that the Burnham Committee "—

Mr. Speaker: It is a rule of the House that an hon. Member whose Question has been disallowed cannot read it on a point of order. I think I can shorten this matter because I remember that when my attention was drawn to the state of the Order

Paper for today and I found that there were 25 Questions down on this subject, I ruled that no more should be accepted. In that, I was following a precedent. One of my predecessors would not allow three Questions which were the same on one day. I should not like to be bound by so narrow a limit, but it is quite clear that if hon. Members were to exercise, as it were, a pre-emption on the Question Paper, it would be unfair to hon. Members with other subjects to raise. Probably that answers the point of order which the hon. Lady has in mind.

Miss Bacon: I was reading the Question to show that it was quite different from any of the other Questions. Perhaps you would inform the House, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance of hon. Members, at what stage Questions become a campaign. There are many Questions on the Order Paper today. It would be for our guidance to know at what stage no more Questions would be accepted.

Mr. Speaker: The determination of that question—when it becomes a campaign—is left to the discretion of the Chair and is therefore wrapped in a certain amount of impenetrable mystery.

Mr. Butler: The reply to these Questions is as follows: I have offered to authorise exploratory discussions on the Whitley Council on possible methods of implementing equal pay gradually. The offer was declined by the staff representatives, but is still open. Arbitration on a question of high policy would, as Governments of both parties have recognised, be undesirable.

Mr. Pannell: Does not the Chancellor appreciate that it would put the Civil Service trade unions in a very weak position if they were to negotiate on something which may or may not happen at some hypothetical date in the dim and distant future before the implementation of the principle itself is resolved? It could mean a simple decision now and possible implementation later. I think we are still waiting for the Chancellor to name the day for that step to be taken.

Mr. Butler: I am sorry that the offer was not accepted, but I have never questioned the good faith of the unions concerned or their motives in declining. I am only sorry that we could not make more progress in that way in seeing what gradual schemes there might be.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that the Institution of Civil Servants has been given an arbitration award for an increase in pay and that the question of women's salaries has been left for further negotiation, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any significance in that fact and whether it means that the Institution will now be able to discuss equal pay in the Civil Service before the Arbitration Court?

Mr. Butler: No. There has been upheld by successive Governments a right to refuse arbitration on certain high policy grounds. This has been reasserted at intervals since 1926. I can give, for example, two occasions: in 1941 arbitration was refused on the war bonus and in 1949 the then Labour Government refused arbitration on the question of the balance of civil pay. Questions of the type on which arbitration is not usually permitted are those of equal pay and such as I have already mentioned. There is nothing novel in the procedure which is being evolved and which has been upheld by previous Governments.

Mr. Houghton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the so-called negotiations which he offered to the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council were a mere theoretical exercise, because he said that a condition of these negotiations would be that the Government could not commit themselves either as to the form or as to the date when a beginning could be made with the introduction of the principle of equal pay? Is he further aware that when these circumstances were reported to the General Council of the Trades Union Congress they completely defended the attitude of the Staff Side in refusing to enter into so-called negotiations without a beginning and without an end?

Mr. Butler: I do not know why either the hon. Member or the Staff Side should be on the defensive about this. My motive was perfectly honourable and quite understandable. I was unable to make a better offer at the time. They did not accept it. I do not hold it against them, and there is no reason for them to defend themselves. I am only sorry that we have not been able to make a little more progress.

Mr. George Craddock: Is the Chancellor aware that his answer will be

viewed by those concerned with deep dissatisfaction?

Mr. Pannell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what answer he has returned to the resolution of the Trades Union Congress last September asking that early progress with the introduction of equal pay in the public services should be made.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Representatives of the T.U.C. discussed this matter with me on 4th March. I promised to give consideration to their representations.

Mr. Pannell: Does the Chancellor appreciate that this is not a matter which depends on the Budget? He can make this declaration at any time he likes, or set some sort of date now or in the future. What is holding him up? When he was on this side of the House he was on record as being very much in favour of it.

Mr. Butler: I am giving consideration to the latest representations which I have received from the T.U.C, and I should have thought that they require a certain degree of consideration.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the Chancellor confirm that in his talks with the T.U.C. he intends that manual and domestic female workers will also be included in the claim for equal pay?

Mr. Butler: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean industrial civil servants?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, and other public servants, such as bath attendants and others.

Mr. Butler: All I can say at this stage is that in their deputation to me, which was of a very weighty and solemn character, the T.U.C. made an allusion to industrial civil servants and said that they should be included within any consideration which I gave.

Dr. King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conditions must be satisfied before the economic position of the country will permit him to introduce equal pay for women in the public services.

Mr. Pannell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take fresh note of the Motion of this House, agreed to without a Division on 16th May, 1952, in the light of the termination of hostilities in Korea and the consequent tapering off of arms expenditure.

Mr. Morley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the cessation of hostilities in Korea and the prospect of a lessening of international tension, with a consequent reduction in armament expenditure, he will now state what measures he proposes to take to implement the principle of equal pay for men and women in the Government service.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the reduction in defence expenditure consequent upon the cessation of hostilities in Korea, if he will now give the date when he will introduce equal pay for equal work in the Government service.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, in view of the Government's claim that the country's economic and financial situation has improved, he will announce the date on which he will apply the principle of equal pay for equal work in the Civil Service;
(2) what are the circumstances that prevent him from putting into operation the principle of equal pay for equal work as decided unanimously in this House on 16th May, 1952;
(3) whether he will apply the principle of equal pay for equal work in the Civil Service, as from 5th April, 1954, due to the Government's claim that the country's economic situation has improved.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the improvement in the terms of trade and its effect on Britain's financial position, he will now implement the promise on equal pay given to the House by his Financial Secretary on 16th May, 1952.

Miss Burton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware that male employees in Government service, with no dependants, receive higher pay than women in a similar position; that women employees with dependants receive less than men without any; and if he will, therefore, consider such anomalies when preparing his Budget statement, in view of the improved financial situation which will arise as the result of the cessation of hostilities in Korea;
(2) whether he is aware of public disquiet at the refusal to consider the wage claim of equal pay in the public service together with other wage claims since this Government took office; what is the reason for the continuing discrimination against women workers; and if, in view of his claim that the financial position of the country has now improved, he will take steps to remove such discrimination.

Mr. Simmons: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will apply the principle of equality that governs payment of women and men Members of Parliament to present employees in the Civil Service, in view of the Government's claim of an improvement in the national finances.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I will, with permission, answer these Questions together.

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. I am not prepared to have my Question No. 12 answered with the others, because in my view it raises a separate point.

Miss Burton: Further to that point of order. In connection with Question No. 19, as that also raises a separate point, I should prefer to have it answered separately.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be better if the hon. Members heard the answer because they would then know whether it replied to their Questions.

Mr. Butler: I shall be glad to answer the points raised by the hon. Ladies in supplementary questions. If I may now give the general answer, I think it will be found that it covers all those points.
As has been repeatedly stated, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make a start on the introduction of equal pay in the Civil Service as soon as the financial and economic situation of the country permits. The question raised by hon. Members is whether that condition has yet come about. There is no precise criterion by which to judge whether the financial and economic situation of the country is such as to justify the step desired. This must be a matter of judgment and is one not easy to deal with by way of question and answer. I have no further statement to make about it today.

Dr. King: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the whole of the propaganda of the Government since they took office has been that the financial position of the country has been steadily improving? If that is still true, why has not he begun to implement the principle of equal pay?

Mr. Butler: The answer is that it is true, and the better it gets the nearer the time will come for the introduction of equal pay.

Dr. Summerskill: If the Chancellor still claims that Britain is too poor to pay its women civil servants equal pay, can he explain why it is that countries far poorer than Britain do not exploit their women civil servants as cheap labour?

Mr. Butler: I would not have thought that the women who do such splendid work in the Civil Service would regard themselves as being exploited as cheap labour. That is a personal opinion. I have certainly not found it so in my experience. I have studied the foreign experiments to which the right hon. Lady draws attention, and there are a variety of degrees of difference between the various countries. For example, I think that there is no country in the world carrying so comparatively high a burden of defence expenditure and so magnificent a social service programme, with its consequent expense, as this country is carrying at the present time.

Miss Burton: With regard to Question No. 19, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that women with dependants are very much worse off than married people who have younger ones to support them when they reach retiring age? May I ask him, therefore, if he believes that dependants should be recognised, why spinsters and bachelors should not receive the same pay. With regard to Question No. 20, may I ask him why it is, in spite of the continued improvement of the financial position of this country, according to hon. Members opposite, the claim of women for equal pay is always at the back of any queue at any time?

Mr. Butler: The answer to Question No. 20 is that I do not think that equal pay is at the back of the queue. It carries with it very considerable repercussions throughout our economic life, and any Government, as has been proved by

the experience of the last Government, has to adopt a very responsible attitude in approaching this question.
In regard to Question No. 19, to which the hon. Lady referred, I would not like to get into details about the rival burdens to be carried by men or women with regard to dependants who depend upon them. I would rather, if this question were tackled, simply make a fair approach to the problem of equal pay generally and not link it up with anything else.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I think that we are getting on rather nicely, and can I help him along at all?

Mr. Butler: That is a most unexpected appropriation-in-aid on a subject on which I did not expect it.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent speech he made in the country he claimed that there had been a big increase in consumption in the last year owing to the improvement of the terms of trade, and as women workers have always suffered from his pessimism in the past, will he now take immediate steps to give them a share of his mood of economic optimism?

Mr. Butler: I am sure that they deserve it.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is it not extremely difficult for this Government to implement equal pay for equal work for the very obvious reason that the previous Government drove this country to the verge of bankruptcy?

Mr. Butler: It is precisely because Her Majesty's Government have saved this country from disaster that we are getting towards the solution of our problems.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman stopped talking a lot of nonsense about this matter. If he does make the claim that there has been a substantial improvement in the financial position, Why does he hesitate about implementing the principle which he supported on frequent occasions and, indeed, opposed the Labour Government because they did not go as far as he wished at the time; and is not it true that all his answers and all his qualifications and


equivocations mean that he does not intend to do anything at all? Answer that.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Morley.

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called Mr. Morley.

Mr. Morley: Does the right hon. Gentleman's first answer to these Questions mean that he is to be the judge of when the economic conditions are right for the granting of equal pay, and is that not merely a subjective judgment; and can he state in concrete terms when he thinks the economic conditions will be right for the granting of equal pay?

Mr. Butler: As I said in my original answer, that must be a matter of judgment, and I am afraid that the House must leave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day and the Government of the day the decision on an important matter like this.
May I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's intervention and simply say that I was trying to give precedence to the number of Questions which I took together. I knew that the hon. Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley) was one of those whose questions had not yet been put, and therefore I was endeavouring to answer those questions before answering him.

Hon. Members: Answer it now.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Chancellor explain why, quite rightly, hon. Ladies who are Ministers and back benchers in this House receive equal pay, which we all agree to, and why the civil servants who come and sit in the official Gallery here do not get equal pay for equal work? Can he give any explanation?

Mr. Butler: Like a good many things to do with women, this is entirely illogical.

Brigadier Rayner: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that we have it on the very highest authority that women were put in the world to make it a much more beautiful place and to perform their very gracious duties, and not to compete physically or economically with men? Will he, therefore, not consider whether he should begin to resist in principle this

effort by the ladies to achieve an artificial equality?

Mr. Dodds: Is not the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon thoroughly dishonest?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a proper expression to use in asking a supplementary question.

Mr. Dodds: In view of your intervention, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw "thoroughly dishonest," but I am grateful that you are not a thought-reader. In view of the fact that the Conservative Party in 1950, when the economics of the country were difficult, gave an undertaking in "The Right Road for Britain" that
we shall encourage equal pay for men and women doing equivalent work,
can we not expect a better performance today from the Chancellor of the Exchequer than the one he has given?

Mr. Butler: I am very well aware of that sentence as, I think, I drafted it myself. It has always been a wish of mine that, when the circumstances made it possible, this very desirable reform should be introduced.

Mr. Houghton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, pending the introduction of equal pay to women in the public services, he will raise the women's scales by a further 19 per cent, of the men's scales.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. To do so would in many cases give women more pay than men.

Mr. Houghton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that this is the best thing short of equal pay itself? Can he not go quite as far as this?

Mr. Butler: The trouble is that it goes further than equal pay.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tests of quality and output have been applied to the work of women in the public service; and how far they support the claim of equal pay for equal work.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In their evidence to the Royal Commission on Equal Pay, the Treasury in general agreed that in the main classes, and subject to certain reservations about sickness and wastage


rates, the work and the output of women were not inferior to those of men. There is, I believe, no dispute about the desirability in principle of equal pay for equal work.

Mr. Craddock: In view of that answer, surely the Chancellor should give effect to the spirit of the series of Questions supporting equal pay for equivalent work.

Mr. Butler: Certainly my answer does not weaken the case.

Mrs. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his promises of jam tomorrow makes a depressing diet and that the women of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are becoming disillusioned by the delay of the Government in meeting this just claim?

Mr. Butler: As my hon. Friend refers to jam, she will reflect that the women of Britain must be very relieved to have sugar off the ration.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what age the scales of pay of young women in the Civil Service falls behind the scales of young men in the same grade; and for what reason.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In the main common established grades the scales provide for a common minimum on recruitment and diverge in the early 20s. In effect, differentiation is waived below these ages.

Dr. King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what cases increments awarded to State employees, since the passing by this House of a Resolution on the subject on 16th May, 1952, have contained differentiations according to sex.

Mr. R. A. Butler: There are many hundreds of different grades in the Civil Service, and I regret that I cannot give a comprehensive answer to the Question except by saying that there has been no change of practice since 16th May, 1952.

Dr. King: Would not the Chancellor agree that it is a serious matter to flout a Resolution of the House of Commons, and that even if he could not make up equal pay for previous discrepancies, all increases that have taken place since that Resolution ought to have conformed to

the spirit of that Resolution and to have been equal as between men and women?

Mr. Butler: That would lead to a complicated situation. It does not mean that we do not give full weight to Resolutions of the House of Commons.

Dr. King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost to the Treasury of implementing equal pay throughout the Civil Service; and the cost to the Treasury of implementing equal pay in the teaching profession.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The immediate cost in the non-industrial Civil Service is estimated at £13.4 million, and in the teaching profession at £17.2 million, of which £10.7 million would fall on the Exchequer and £6.5 million on local rates.

Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman, then, of opinion that the economic and financial position of the country has not improved during the last two years to the extent of our being able to carry £30 million a year?

Mr. Butler: As I said, that is a matter of judgment. Unfortunately, our burdens, including defence and other matters, and including the education Vote, have also increased.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the amount that he has mentioned is in all equal to the amount which was underspent in relation to the Estimates for defence this year?

Mr. Butler: I realise that there is a relation between these two figures.

Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that responsible Members on both sides of this House would not press him in this way unless they had the utmost confidence that the financial position of the country was really improving and was far better than it was when the Labour Government were unable to implement this principle?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I regard the whole of this campaign and pressure today as a great compliment to the Government.

Miss Lee: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that if he adds together the two sums given in his previous answer for teachers and civil servants, the


total is much less than half the amount we should save once we come to our senses and withdraw from the Suez Canal? If he further aware that he could meet both this demand and the demand of the ex-Service men and also satisfy public opinion by spending our money much more sensibly?

Mr. Butler: The validity of the hon. Lady's question depends on what happens to the troops after they leave the Suez Canal. If they remain a charge on public funds, the only difference would be between overseas and internal payments.

Miss Burton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the continued refusal to grant women teachers equal pay is having an adverse effect upon suitable would-be entrants to the profession; and if he will, therefore, reconsider his previous decision.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland. As regards the second part, I would refer her to the reply I have given today to her other Question.

Miss Burton: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his first suggestion would get him exactly nowhere? If he proposes to approach this matter with a sense of real responsibility, does he not think that that responsibility might be directed at removing these injustices? Does he not realise that education is suffering because of this treatment of women teachers and would-be teachers?

Mr. Butler: I cannot intervene in the administration of other Departments, otherwise I should have to take on Departments for which I should be very incompetent.

Mr. Fisher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all parties have for a long time promised an acceptance of this principle and that the question now is, when is the principle to be put into practice and the promise into pay?

Mr. Butler: The general interest in this subject which has been evinced in the House today and the sincerity of the questions cannot but have their influence upon anybody in a position like myself.

Miss Bacon: As the chief architect of the Education Act, 1944, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Act is in jeopardy largely because of the large classes resulting from the shortage of teachers?

Mr. Butler: I do not think it is entirely due to this subject because, I am glad to say, some of the young women recruits to the teaching profession are of the very highest quality, and we must not think that it is this subject alone which is making things difficult.

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reduce the hours of work of women employed in the public services pending the introduction of equal pay.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Bence: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and the party opposite do not seem to be prepared to raise women workers in the Civil Service to equal pay with men because the country cannot afford it, would he not consider, as he accepts the principle of equal pay, reducing their hours of work, thereby enabling the principle to be applied?

Mr. Butler: There is so much work to do that it would be very undesirable.

Mr. Simmons: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will implement the principle of equal pay, irrespective of sex, for all employed in the Government service in all future appointments, in view of the Government's claim of an improvement in the national finances.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. It would be undesirable for new recruits to be paid on a more favourable basis than their seniors.

Mr. Simmons: Would not that be a way of implementing the principle gradually by starting with new entrants?

Mr. Butler: It would be a way, but I do not think it would be a very good way.

Mr. Simmons: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will apply the principle of equal pay, irrespective of sex, to all increments awarded to civil servants since the passing of the resolution by this House on 16th May, 1952.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) on 4th February, 1954.

Mr. Simmons: Surely the Chancellor does not mean to apply the same answer to Question No. 25 as he did to Question No. 23, because the payment in that case is already in operation and only increments would be affected. Surely this is at least a way of carrying out the right hon. Gentleman's pledge this afternoon to implement the principle gradually.

Mr. Butler: The difficulty there, as my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, is that it would be a pity to deal with details which might not prove satisfactory before dealing with the main question of principle. I think his judgment is right.

Mr. Simmons: The right hon. Gentleman has accepted the principle.

Overseas Transactions (Applications)

Mr. Page: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for Treasury consent under Section 468 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, or the Section which it replaced, were made during 1952 and 1953, respectively; and in how many of such applications was consent refused.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Three hundred and forty-seven applications for Treasury consent were made in 1952 and 223 in 1953. Consent was refused in seven cases in 1952 and in one case in 1953.

Mr. Page: In consideration of the fact that I am providing my right hon. Friend with this welcome change of subject, will he state whether he does not consider that this action in trying to stop up some small leaks of tax evasion is preventing the flow of investment in the Commonwealth?

Mr. Butler: I have not found that to be the case, but in view of what my hon. Friend says, I will certainly look at it.

United States Economy

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that the present 10 per cent, slump in the United States of America will not affect the United Kingdom economy in the same way as did the similar slump in 1949 when the £ sterling

was devalued; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I cannot improve on the answer given in the speech made by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in the debate on the industrial situation on 3rd March.

Mr. Osborne: Can the Chancellor say why he has been able to succeed in protecting this country from the worst effects of the American slump and why his Socialist predecessor failed so miserably before?

Mr. Butler: It is the case that although the American slump—that is, the decline in production—has, in fact, been in existence for some months, we are still maintaining our reserves position. I would say in all sincerity to the House, owing to the great difficulties, that it would be a great mistake in a matter like this to generalise any further, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the Chancellor say to what extent the 10 per cent, slump in America is accentuated by the adoption or non-adoption of the principle of equal pay in the United States?

Government Services (Sick Leave)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total annual time lost through sick leave in the Government services during the last available year, expressing this as days per year in respect of men and women, respectively.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Shepherd: In view of the effect that this may have on the actual claim for equal pay, could my right hon. Friend see that the figures are obtained in the future?

Mr. Butler: If, in fact, I get any nearer than I have been able to do in the time available, I certainly will do so and will inform the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pannell: Is it not a fact that there is plenty of evidence about this matter in the Royal Commission's Report on Equal Pay? Of course, nobody on this side of the House thinks that the hon.


Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) reads anything like that.

Galleries and Museums (Assistance)

Dr. Stross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial assistance has been given by the Arts Council to prevent the closure of private art galleries and museums owing to lack of funds.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Council has made no grant specifically to prevent such institutions from closing.

Dr. Stross: Is the Chancellor aware that some of the galleries are threatened with closure, including the Whitechapel Gallery and the one at Barnard Castle, and even if the Arts Council were to find some money they have not got sufficient to spare for this purpose? Will the Chancellor give further consideration to the giving of Government assistance to prevent this important part of our civilised society from being destroyed?

Mr. Butler: I have given the answer to the best of my ability. I do not like to interfere with the discretion of the Arts Council, but it was in their last Report that they referred to the difficulties of private museums. It was because of that that questions have been raised, and I do not doubt but that they will pay attention to the questions that have been put.

Civil Service (Pay)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the present financial position of senior civil servants, as shown in an article in the "Financial Times," 2nd February, 1954, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will, therefore, pending the findings of the recently- appointed Royal Commission on the Civil Service, extend to the higher
administrative grades salary concessions similar to those already granted to principals.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have received representations to this effect from the staff associations concerned, and I hope to reply to them very shortly.

Cinemas (Tax)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his estimate of the annual loss of revenue which would

result from granting entertainments tax rebates on the exhibition of British films, as proposed in a memorandum to his Department from the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association.

Mr. R. A. Butler: About £4½ million a year at the present time; but I understand that the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association no longer support this proposal.

Income Tax (Child Allowance)

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in considering his forthcoming Budget, he will give a high priority to a substantial increase in the Income Tax child allowance.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, along with other suggestions which have been made to me in connection with my forthcoming Budget.

Mr. Jay: Would the Chancellor agree that this would be a desirable concession to make simultaneously with the introduction of equal pay?

Mr. Butler: I think that must be a matter for the future.

British Investments (Canada)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state, correct to the nearest £1 million, the amount of British investments in Canada during 1953 and comparative figures for 1951 and 1948; and what steps he is taking to stimulate further the subscription of British capital to new Canadian enterprise and development.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Figures of the actual amounts invested are not available. The amounts authorised were £38 million in 1953 and £23 million in 1951; we have not figures for 1948. I shall continue to do my best to provide dollars for such investment.

Mr. Nabarro: Do not the figures show a 60 per cent, increase in Canadian investment since 1951, reflecting the growing economic strength of this country, and will my right hon. Friend do all in his power urgently to stimulate further United Kingdom investment in Canada in view of the enormous capital demand for industrial and mining development?

Mr. Butler: Of course, it is a matter of the utmost importance to our strength overseas that we should invest in Canada, and I have been very glad to note the increase.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent British investors will be permitted to participate financially in the Canadian project for the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes waterways project; and what steps he is taking to stimulate this valuable form of Canadian dollar investment.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am anxious to facilitate direct U.K. participation in the construction of this project and have already approved a number of applications. I could not, however, allow British investors to subscribe to the capital since this would be portfolio investment which we cannot afford at present.

Mr. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend's reply mean that investments that have taken place so far are Government investments from the United Kingdom and institutional investments are at all events precluded today?

Mr. Butler: I think the answer says what it means, namely, that I could not allow British investors to take up ordinary portfolio investment, but a certain number of applications of a more general type have been allowed.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Can the Chancellor say if such investments, which apparently would be on behalf of the Government, would be in addition to any investment made by the United States Government or in place of it if they did not come in?

Mr. Butler: I think it is in addition.

Tax Allowances (School Fees)

Gower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if, when framing his Budget, he will consider the possibility of giving taxation relief to parents who pay fees for the education of their children;
(2) what are the technical difficulties which prevent any Income Tax allowances being granted to parents who relieve the State of burdens by paying for the education of their own children.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As my hon. Friend is aware, I have promised to consider

his suggestion, in common with other taxation suggestions, when I am framing my Budget proposals, but I cannot discuss the problems involved in a reply to a Question.

Mr. Gower: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that the State system of education will probably break down if large numbers of parents do not continue to send their children to private schools, and will he bear in mind that the expense is very great and that if there is no tax concession the cost may become prohibitive?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of the considerations which the hon. Member has brought to my attention.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that if he introduces this principle of inequality of treatment between parents who send their children to State schools and those who, for personal reasons, elect to send them to private schools, he will be causing great offence to a large section of the public?

Social Services (Finance)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in considering his Budget proposals, he will review the financial stability of all the social services and take appropriate action.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Sir W. Smithers: Has the Chancellor studied the three articles by Loud Beveridge recently published in the "Sunday Times" which show that the Welfare State is now "in the red"? Does he not realise that the Socialist policy of a comprehensive Welfare State kills initiative, ruins character and is the fundamental cause of our difficulties today because we have to import half our food and raw materials, that the cost of the Welfare State must be added to the cost of production, and that this prevents us1 from exporting our goods at world competitive prices which we must do, or starve?

Mr. Butler: I should not like to associate the existence of the Welfare State with imminent starvation. I should like to say that I have read the series of articles, by Lord Beveridge, and I have


naturally studied them in company with the other expert opinion I get on this subject.

Sir W. Smithers: What is my right hon. Friend going to do about it?

Tobacco Duty

Mr. Russell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to reduce the delay between the payment of duty on tobacco withdrawn from bond for export, and the repayment of the drawback, in view of the difficulties this places on small firms.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The need to keep the delay in the payment of drawback on exported tobacco to a minimum is fully recognised, but if my hon. Friend will send me details of any individual case of difficulty he may have in mind, I will see if anything further can be done.

Government Departments (Differentia] Practices)

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give details of differential practices in recruitment grades in all Government Departments and the dates of their introduction.

Mr. R. A. Butler: If my hon. Friend will give me further particulars, I will do my best to give her an answer.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister of Labour told me last week that the fact that Grade II Factory Inspectors get equal pay, although neither Grade I nor Grade III get it, was due to some recruitment arrangement? If it is possible under one recruitment arrangement to give equal pay, would it not be possible under other recruitment arrangements to give equal pay, because what is the difference?

Mr. Butler: It was precisely to elicit such clarification as this that I gave my answer, and I will now study the submission made by the hon. Lady.

Tobacco Tokens

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of old-age pensioners at the latest convenient date who were taking advantage of the tobacco concessions introduced in the Finance Act, 1947.

Mr. R. A. Butler: About 2,300,000 old-age pensioners at present receive tobacco tokens.

Miss Ward: Could my right hon. Friend say what proportion of the total that represents, and what he is doing for the ones who do not draw their, tobacco ration at the lower rate?

Mr. Butler: This represents about one-half of the old-age pensioners in the categories covered by the tobacco token scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — RECORD OFFICE (SCOTTISH RECORDS)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Record Office in Chancery Lane, London, is overcrowded with valuable records; that many are Scottish records which, by reason of the overcrowding, are not easily accessible to Scottish scholars; that a new Scottish National Library and Record Office is now being built in Edinburgh; and if he will take step to transfer to Scottish custody in Edinburgh the Scottish records now housed in Chancery Lane, London.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The Public Record Office is not now overcrowded. In strict law records held there are not Scottish records unless and until a direction is made by the Master of the Rolls under the Public Records (Scotland) Act, 1937. Under this procedure a number were transferred to the Scottish Record Office in 1948. Some records held at Chancery Lane are, of course, of interest to both countries.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there are still in Chancery Lane a number of records which are euphemistically called reports by the people known as "intelligencers," that those reports are urgently required by Scottish historians and scholars, and will he take steps to have them sent to Edinburgh where they can be used for the public good?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is to some extent a matter of opinion whether certain of these documents are Scottish or English records. As I understand it, they were intelligence reports sent by the English Ambassador in the 16th Century


to the Secretary of State in London. They give interesting information about Scotland but, of course, they were paid for, in accordance with the custom of those days and no doubt at a considerable rate, by the English taxpayer.

Mr. Nicholson: May I ask my hon. Friend where he would keep records concerning an hon. Member born in Ireland with a Welsh name who sits for a Scottish seat?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should like a lot of notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Types

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many four- and five-bedroomed houses were built in 1953; and how this compares with 1951.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): In 1953, 4,211 dwellings with four bedrooms and 36 dwellings with five or more bedrooms were completed. The figures for 1951 were 4,295 and 69, respectively. These figures apply only to houses built by local authorities and new town corporations.

Mr. Dodds: But how does the hon. Gentleman explain that there were less in 1953 than in 1951 when "The Right Road for Britain" specified that his party would build more four- and five-bedroomed houses for large families? They have not been built through the local councils or in the new towns.

Mr. Marples: There is hardly any difference in the figures as between 1951 and 1953. All the evidence now shows that the size of the family is decreasing, and surely it is the correct policy to see that the number of rooms in a house corresponds with the number of people in the family?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the hon. Gentleman explain if that document "The Right Road for Britain" has been paid for by the same British intelligencers?

House Purchase (Deposits)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made in his talks with building societies to secure a reduction in the deposit which a house purchaser has to find.

Mr. Marples: Two complementary schemes of guarantee under Section 5 (2) of the Housing Act, 1949, have been worked out. These schemes are now being considered by the associations of local authorities concerned. My right hon. Friend hopes to have their comments shortly.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the immense interest in this subject, can the hon. Gentleman explain what "shortly" means, because we have had a big disparity in the use of that word?

Mr. Marples: I think it would be prudent to wait until the local authority associations make their comments. The schemes were sent to them on 25th February last, and as soon as1 they have made their reply my right hon. Friend will be in a position to make a statement.

Newcastle-under-Lyme (Sites)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) if he is aware of the continuing shortage of housing sites in Newcastle-under-Lyme; and if he will make a statement on the release of further land to the south of Seabridge Lane;
(2) if he is in a position to make a statement on the joint survey of land for housing in Newcastle-under-Lyme undertaken by the land commissioner, the county planning officer and the borough surveyor; and how soon he will be able to grant planning permission for additional sites.

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. As the result of the survey certain proposals are at present being considered in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, but my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Swingler: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for the assistance being given to Newcastle-under-Lyme by the officers of his Department, will he appreciate that the Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council is unable to accede to the request


of his right hon. Friend for a three-year housing plan because of their inability to forecast the housing sites? Therefore, will he maintain continuous touch with the Ministry of Agriculture in order to give the council the assurance that their housing programme can go ahead?

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware that Newcastle has sufficient land for housing until, I think, the end of 1955, but he also appreciates that they want a speedy decision so that they can get ahead with the essential services on further sites, and he will certainly bear that in mind.

Building Costs

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the average costs of building per house in 1948 and 1953; what were the costs of materials per house in 1948 and 1953; what were the costs of labour per house in 1948 and 1953; and what proportions of the total cost per house were materials and labour, respectively, in 1948 and 1953.

Mr. Marples: The relevant figures for a three-bedroom local authority house begun in 1948 are given in the Second Report of the Girdwood Committee. I estimate the cost of the average three-bedroom house built in 1953 at £1,385, of which £457 (33 per cent.) represents labour and £790 (57 per cent.) materials.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Domestic Water Supplies (Expenditure)

Mr. Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is satisfied that the figure of £20 specified as the maximum recoverable by a local authority in respect of expenses incurred in the provision of a supply of water to a house under Section 138 (3) of the Public Health Act, 1936, is sufficient having regard to corn-temporary costs; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend has heard of very few difficulties because of the £20 limit, but he will watch this point.

Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend appreciates, does he not, that if £20 was

the right figure in 1936, it can hardly be the right figure today if this matter were to be reviewed?

Planning Appeals (Procedure)

Mr. Walker-Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has had regard to recent representations made to him as to possible improvements in the procedure relating to the adjudication of planning appeals; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend has considered these representations, but he thinks that the present procedure for dealing with planning appeals is appropriate. He is concerned, however, about the time taken for decisions; this has lengthened because of the increase in the number of appeals, he is taking measures to shorten it.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Does not my hon. Friend think that, in addition to expediting the giving of the decision, there is room for improvement in the procedure, particularly in the direction of making the report of the person holding the inquiry available to the parties?

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend has gone into that many times and has decided that it would not be advisable to publish the report. If, however, my hon. Friend has any further representations to make, perhaps he will do so and I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider them.

Rating Assessments (New Shop-Fronts)

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will take steps to prevent the disincentive to desirable development resulting from the policy of increased assessments for rates when a shopkeeper improves his shop-front.

Mr. Marples: Under rating law, if an improvement to a shop or other property appreciably increases its rental value, then its assessment has to be increased.

Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern expressed by a number of chambers of trade at the abandonment by shopkeepers of development of this kind for fear of bringing increased rate


liability upon their heads, and does he not think that there is cause here for treating this type of development as exceptional to the general rating rule?

Mr. Marples: I should think that if it applied to shops it would have to apply to almost everything else as well.

Mr. Wade: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the entire basis of assessment is fundamentally wrong, and that it is most unfortunate that where a shopkeeper or any other owner of property improves his property the consequence is that the rates go up?

Derating

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what representations he has received from the Metropolitan Boroughs' Standing Joint Committee urging the abolition of derating; and what reply he has made.

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend received representations in connection with the review of the Exchequer equalisation grant urging the abolition of the derating provision of the Local Government Act 1929 and replied that he could not regard such a change as a necessary preliminary to further consideration of the review.

Mr. Fletcher: That may be so, but is the Minister aware that there is a widespread demand for the abolition of derating, and when can we know the proposals of the Government with regard to it?

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he will take measures to put an end to the derating of agricultural and industrial properties.

Mr. Marples: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 6th November last.

Mr. Morley: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that nearly all local authorities in this country have to raise their rates during the forthcoming year, and if he is not willing to consider the abolition of derating, what additional source of revenue does he propose to place at their disposal?

Mr. Marples: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says because the issues are continually under consideration. That was the gist of the reply of my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) in November, and my right hon. Friend did not want to make a statement on the subject.

Mr. Baldwin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the effect of derating land will be to increase the cost of producing food?

Mr. Short: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the county borough of Newcastle-upon-Tyne loses the equivalent of a 1s. 6d. rate through derating, and that we receive nothing at all by way of compensation from the rate equalisation grant?

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this single proposal would bring the greatest possible relief to ratepayers throughout the country and that it would mean a reduction of 3s. in the rates in the City of Cardiff? Will he hurry up his consideration of the matter?

Mr. Marples: I am surprised that it was not done between 1945 and 1951.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the Minister's most unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

LETTERS TO MEMBERS (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: I wish to give a Ruling about a question raised on 23rd February by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths).
The facts of this case appear to be as follows: In the debate on the Christmas Adjournment in 1952 the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester drew attention to the activities of the Hollins Permanent Building Society of Manchester whose chairman at that time was a Mr. Murray. In replying, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government suggested that the details be sent to the Registrar of Friendly Societies. The correspondence, including letters from constituents, was sent to the Registrar, who last July took successful proceedings


against the Building Society and Mr. Murray for failure to keep certain records as required by statute. From questions addressed by the hon. Member to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 23rd February, it appeared that, in the course of the investigation which this communication had led the Registrar to make, a constituent's letter was seen by Mr. Murray who now threatens the constituent with a libel action.
In so far as any question of Privilege arises, it is probably unnecessary to remind the House of the different senses in which that word may be used. Privilege has a special meaning in the law courts where the confidential character of a communication or the special relationship between sender and recipient may prove a successful answer to an action for defamation. "Privilege" in that forensic sense is a matter for the courts; it certainly does not fall to me to expound it, though I recall that the decision in the case of Rex v. Rule favours the proposition that such a special relationship does exist between a constituent and the Member who represents him.
There is a different use of the word "privilege" more familiar in our proceedings here, namely, Privilege in the Parliamentary sense. I could not hold that Parliamentary Privilege could apply to this threatened litigation between parties who are not Members of Parliament. This House long ago agreed that no new Privileges are to be created.
Hon. Members are naturally and properly concerned to protect the communications which pass between them and those whom they represent. Be that as it may, a complaint of the use made by officials of a constituent's letter sent them by a Member is not a matter either of order or of Parliamentary Privilege. It must be settled in the same way as any other complaint against the conduct of an officer for whom a Minister is responsible.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I thank you for your statement, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that my Question on 23rd February was addressed, as you say, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and from his replies on that day and from the statement which you have been good enough to make to the House today it seems to me that two facts are made clear. First, the inquiries carried out by the Registrar of Friendly Societies into the affairs of the Hollins Permanent Building Society have re-

vealed breaches of the law sufficient for the Registrar successfully to prosecute the Society and Mr. Murray, its former chairman. Second, the correspondence received by me and sent by me to the Registrar on the advice of a Minister was passed on to the Society without my permission and is now quoted against my correspondent and accompanied by threats.
It seems to me obvious that there was some justification for my correspondent's action in writing to me, and it is also obvious that the Minister's advice was well founded in so far as successful legal proceedings were carried through against the Society and its chairman. But due to the indiscretion, as it appears, of someone in the Registrar's Office, unpleasant threats, however impossible they may be of being carried into effect, are made against some correspondents, whose action was in the public interest. Therefore, I hope that what is said today about this matter will not frighten people from writing to their Members of Parliament and will not shake their confidence in the discretion generally exercised by Government Departments. If that should happen, all Members would be seriously concerned. I think that the public should be reassured. It may be that the House might wish, at an early date, to consider its position in this important matter.
If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote, as summarising my view, a view expressed on 21st March, 1951, by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when a previous complaint of breach of Privilege was before the House. My right hon. Friend was then Leader of the House and he was anticipating this kind of situation arising. He said:
There is no doubt that the great growth of the electorate, and the much wider range of intimate concerns which the electorate find themselves compelled to ask Members of Parliament to deal with, have created a situation which really ought to be investigated. As I said earlier, we all get letters, some written by very illiterate people who are trying to do their utmost, and who are often under great physical and mental strain in putting their ideas on paper … I think it would be a good thing if we could consider the modern relationship of a Member of Parliament with his constituents so that we could have some guidance on this matter, and I should have thought myself that the Committee of Privileges was probably the best body to give such advice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 2525–6.]
I rest myself on that.
As you suggested that I might do, Mr. Speaker, I shall pursue the matter of the disclosure of the letters to Mr. Murray by taking such Parliamentary action as is open to me. I feel that throughout this matter I have tried to act in a manner proper for a Member in seeking to protect his constituents from what he regards as dubious practices.

Mr. Paget: On one point of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for further guidance. You said, and of course we all accept it, that this House cannot add to its Privilege. But one of our most ancient Privileges is the right of the representative to communicate with his selectors, and I take it that any interference with that right would be a contempt of Parliament. Whether the issue of a writ in any particular case might be an interference with that right is a matter one would have to consider when it arose, but it could be.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member. I purposely confined my Ruling to the facts of this particular case and I would not desire to say anything that might prejudice any action which the House, in a future case on different facts, might wish to take.

Mr. Mitchison: No one would ask you, Mr. Speaker, for one moment to rule on questions of legal or forensic privilege. Equally no one would wish to deprive some fortunate member of my profession of the chance of a fruitful cross-examination of Mr. Murray, but it is the case, is it not, that the Ruling that you have just given leaves the question of legal privilege entirely open, subject, of course, to the case you yourself mentioned and to the general rules of law on the matter and, therefore, the letters in question may well be privileged from a forensic point of view? I am, of course, not asking you to rule on that whether or not there is any question of Parliamentary Privilege.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is quite right. I referred to the common law privilege in actions for defamation because I thought it was relevant, although it is not for me or this House to pronounce on those matters.

Mr. Bowles: Although you said that it had been decided a long time ago that

this House cannot add to its Privileges, Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate that there are a large number of hon. Members who do not accept that as binding on the present House of Commons, or a future House of Commons. With the alteration in responsibility of hon. Members as disclosed by this case and part of your Ruling, I should like to ask whether you agree that what you said is not binding on a future House of Commons. It might be necessary for this House some time to assert a Parliamentary Privilege in a matter like this, and I should like to know whether you agree to keep that part of the matter open.

Mr. Speaker: I was merely pronouncing on the facts presented to me, and my Ruling is carefully limited to those facts. I will not attempt to prognosticate the future or to pronounce on any hypothetical case.

Mr. Porter: I should like you to amplify the reference in your statement to the question I submitted to you on the previous occasion, Mr. Speaker. On that occasion I asked whether, in giving consideration to this matter, you would determine the actual relationship between the Minister concerned and the hon. Member who wrote to him. I suggested on that occasion that correspondence between an individual and an hon. Member might not be confidential, but when that correspondence was sent by the hon. Member to the Minister my submission was that it was entirely confidential. The point I am putting is that every hon. Member in sending correspondence to the Minister of a Department definitely confines that matter to the named Minister. I want to know whether you gave consideration to how far that Minister named is responsible for that communication sent to him even though it goes into the hands of people in his Department for the purpose of eliciting an answer.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly the Minister is responsible for all actions in his Department. I thought I had covered the point by saying that it was not a point of order or of Parliamentary Privilege. I think it is a matter of ordinary administration and conduct.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: I understood you to say and to mean, Mr. Speaker, that the field of Privilege is now a closed


field. I am not sufficiently a forensic expert to say whether that is correct, but I am not the only one who should confess that he is not a forensic expert in this field. Can you assert the definite authority on which you have come to the conclusion that the field of Privilege is now definitely closed? If at any time in the future this House feels that the rights and Privileges of hon. Members of this House are being invaded, as in this case, and it is felt that the Privilege should be reasserted, or a new Privilege asserted, what action, if any, can the House take in asserting its position?

Mr. Speaker: I was only dealing with the present situation. At present we are governed by a Resolution passed by this House—I will find the date of if and give it to the hon. Member later—saying that this House will not add to its privileges. That was the authority for what I said, and if the House cares to take another view in the future, that is a matter for the House and not for me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

EQUAL PAY

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish the principle of equal pay.
This seems to be the natural sequence to the proceedings in the House earlier this afternoon and is, in fact, exactly what the Petition presented by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) asked to be done. The House will expect me briefly to explain what the Bill proposes to do, how it proposes to do it, and when. The principle of equal pay has been accepted as a principle by all parties in this House and by the House itself, but the principle has so far not been generally established— accepted, yes, but not established—not even in the public services where the writ of this House runs today. Yet it is 34 years since this House went on record as saying:
That it is expedient that women should have equal opportunity of employment with men in all branches of the Civil Service within the United Kingdom and under all local authorities and should also receive equal pay."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1920; Vol. 129, c. 1539.]
We have already heard this afternoon from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) how, in 1944, the principle of equal pay for women teachers came near to being established by law at the time of consideration of the Education Bill. Then it was a question of "so near and yet so far" because the Prime Minister—the same Prime Minister as we have today—prevailed upon the House to take it out of the Bill. Two years ago, the House will remember, we reaffirmed acceptance of the principle of equal pay in a Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West and asked for early action to be taken to implement the principle in a wide range of public services.
On the Order Paper today there are nearly 200 signatures of hon. Members on both sides of the House in support of Motions asking for action to be taken without further delay. Some hon. Members have preferred one Motion and some another. I notice that the Liberal Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), has signed both, thereby combining his further support of


equal pay with some form of political neutrality. Huge petitions have been presented to the House this afternoon from hundreds of thousands of men and women in all walks of life, inside and outside the public services, humbly praying—ever praying—the House to take steps without fail this year to turn an accepted principle into an established fact.
The Bill which I ask leave to introduce does what I feel sure the House will wish to see done. It will end the uncertainty and even doubt lasting so many years about the sincerity of the House on this important matter. How will the Bill propose to do it? Quite simply, by making any contract of service void as regards the rate of pay if it contains any differentiation between the pay of a woman and a man based solely upon sex. In other words, it seeks to give statutory support to the principle so clearly defined in a booklet bearing the somewhat misleading title, "The Right Road for Britain," in which it was said:
We consider that there should be one rate for the job, provided that the services rendered and the results achieved by men and women are the same.
I propose, in this Bill, to cover the public services as well as employment outside. I think this Bill is a natural though belated postscript to the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919. Bui no sanctions were written into that Act, and I do not propose penalties in this Bill; but I think it would be reasonable to provide for the right of recovery in a civil court of any underpayment made in contravention of the established principle of equal pay for men and women for services of equal value. That is what the Bill which I ask leave to introduce proposes to do, and how it proposes to do it.
But when? Will it name equal pay date? Yes. Here surely is a case for retrospective legislation if ever there was one. Women workers have been underpaid by millions of pounds during the last 34 years owing to the delay in establishing the principle of equal pay, and some restitution would surely be justified. This, however, is not an occasion for vindictive legislation. Women will forgive

the past, they usually do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I therefore rule out any retroactive Clause from the Bill.
I do not even put in a current day. This may disappoint my hon. Friends. I propose a forward date—the day following the dissolution of the present Parliament—as the appointed day. That may not be unduly delayed. We read that small bets are already being made on an autumn Election. My intention is to give the party opposite the utmost latitude in fulfilling the hopes expressed in their Election Manifesto published under the flamboyant title, "Britain Strong and Free" in October, 1951, when they said:
We hope that during the life of the next Parliament the country's financial position will improve sufficiently to enable us to proceed at an early date with the application in the Government service of the principle of equal pay for men and women for services of equal value.
The House may insist on a more positive date, an earlier date, and, if so, I shall be glad to fall in with the wishes of the House. It may, however, be prudent to underwrite the risk of neglect or default on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
The time for Motions of reaffirmation of the principle of equal pay is past. The House will now, I feel sure, resolve to embody its will in an Act of Parliament. This Bill will do that without recriminations or reproach to this Government or to the last. It is a Bill to set women free. [Interruption.] I repeat, it is a Bill to set women free, and if Her Majesty's Government do not like it they have until they leave office this year, next year or the year after, to come forward with a better one. Even by all the tokens of indifference and failure by Governments in the past, that should be long enough.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Houghton, Miss Bacon, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, Miss Burton, Mrs. Castle, Mr. Morley and Mr. Pannell.

EQUAL PAY BILL,

to establish the principle of equal pay," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th April. [Bill 77.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Navy Estimates, 1954–55

Order for Committee read.

MR. J. P. L. THOMAS'S STATEMENT

3.56 p.m.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
As I have said in my Explanatory Statement, where I have given all the details, I am asking the House this year for £353 million. This is the net figure at which we arrive, taking into account appropriations in aid, including the naval share of mutual defence assistance so generously granted to us by the United States of America in the year 1954–55.
The Navy has had a difficult period in the last few years. In the first place, after the war we had to reduce and then, as the need for increased preparedness arose, we had to build up once more. Distribution of manpower became extremely difficult; men could not serve long in a particular ship, and ships had many movements as we played our part in carrying out our world wide tasks. We should not have been able to fulfil our various obligations, particularly in Korea, if we had not recalled hundreds of reservists and retained in service many men whose engagements had already expired.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that by the end of this month all of the recalled and retained men will be back in civilian life and I am sure that it is the wish of the House that we should let them know how grateful we are to them for their invaluable services.
This means that we can now look at certain problems afresh. I am also sure that the House will appreciate that so long as we had men in the Royal Navy who had been retained beyond their engagements, or who had been recalled from the reserves, it would not have been fair for men on normal engagements to be able to buy themselves out of the Navy. From time to time I have been asked in the House, and in many letters from all sides, to reintroduce discharge

by purchase. I have been only too well aware that the sailor does not, at the moment, enjoy a privilege which is available in some measure to the soldier and to the airman.
I am glad to say that, following the release of the last of these retained men and recalled reservists, I shall be able to reopen discharge by purchase. The scheme will necessarily be on a limited basis as it is in the other two Services and full details will announced to the Fleet this week. With the reintroduction of discharge by purchase we are also able to approve that officers who have not reached the age for compulsory retirement may, at Admiralty discretion, be allowed to retire voluntarily or to resign. That puts us on a similar basis to the other two Services. We have long wished to achieve it, but have been prevented for the reasons I have given.
A sailor's life has always been a hard one. The nature of the Service and the element in which he serves makes that inevitable. But the changing and unpredictable demands upon the Navy since the end of the war, aggravated as they have been by serious shortages in certain branches, have made orderly drafting impossible and have bedevilled all attempts to introduce a reasonable measure of stability into the sailor's life.
This is unsettling obviously both for officers and for men. They have not time to get to know each other; they have not had time to develop a real pride in their ship or in themselves, and their plans for joining their families during spells at home between foreign commissions are far too frequently upset. Briefly, they get heartily sick of being pushed around— although they themselves would perhaps put it more crudely than that.
For 50 years or more ships on overseas stations have served on the basis of a two-and-a-half year commission. Nowadays the call for foreign service is high, and I am only too well aware, as my predecessors have been, that two-and-a-half years' continuous absence abroad, usually involving separation from families for this period, causes hardship to the officers, to the men and, of course, to the families. Successive Governments, as I have said, have all felt that this period is too long, but the strain on naval resources since the war has made a change difficult.
Now that the war in Korea is over, I can tell the House—with considerable relief, I may add—that we are introducing two measures to improve the situation. The first is a scheme of general service commissions for those afloat. The main feature of the scheme is that the maximum period of continued absence from the United Kingdom will not be more than one year. It will also mean that captains, officers and men will remain together as far as possible for 18 months in most ships and for two years in aircraft carriers, because of the special training arrangements in the latter.
Part of the commission will be in the Home Fleet and part on foreign stations, but I repeat that the period away from the United Kingdom will not normally exceed 12 months. The scheme will apply initially to aircraft carriers, cruisers, "Daring" class ships, destroyers and frigates of the Home fleet, the Mediterranean Fleet, the South Atlantic station, the America and West Indies station and the East Indies station, except for the Persian Gulf. For the Persian Gulf there are specialised ships and, alas, they are too few in number for constant changes.
The second measure is to reduce practically all other forms of foreign service not covered by the general service commission scheme. Here officers and men who are either unmarried or who, being married, cannot be accompanied by their families, will have their foreign service reduced to 18 months. Married officers and men who are able to take their families abroad with them will be entitled to family passages and other family benefits, and will serve overseas for up to 30 months if they are needed.
As the House probably knows, ships on the Far East station and in the Persian Gulf, and surveying ships too, move so frequently that there are very few chances of family life, and for that reason, even today, their officers and men do not qualify for family passages. The new scheme does not in any way alter that position, but, as I have said, their time away from the United Kingdom will be reduced from two-and-a-half years to 18 months.
Officers and men on general service commission, whose period of service abroad is not expected to exceed 12

months, will not qualify for family passages or other family benefits abroad. This may sound like a snag in the scheme, but the officers and men in the ships now changing over to general service commissions who have their families abroad with them today represent only 2 per cent, of the officers and 1 per cent, of the men out of the total numbers in the Navy. Therefore, if we weigh those small figures against the improvement for the vast numbers of officers and men which the new scheme will bring, the House will realise why I commend it with confidence to them and to the Royal Navy.
I must warn the House, and, through it, the Navy, that some inconvenience is obviously inevitable during the period of one-and-a-half years or so while the new arrangements are coming into force. We shall begin the plan this June by reducing progressively the period of foreign service and by gradually adjusting the ship commissioning programme to the new form. Many officers and men will be moved from their present billets at home and abroad sooner than they are now expecting to move, but the important point is that once an officer or a man joins a ship newly commissioning under the general service scheme or on the revised foreign service basis, he will be assured of the shorter period of separation from home or family and of the longer periods of living in the same ship and with the same messmates which is a feature of the fixed commission system.
The Admiralty, under successive Governments, as I know well—-the previous Administration did their best, and we have continued to do our best, too—has tried to improve the living conditions on board ship. After all, the fighting efficiency of a warship, as the House knows, depends upon the efficiency of her crew, and that, in turn, depends largely upon the conditions under which they have to live. Living conditions rank equally in importance with armaments, speed, endurance, protection and other fighting characteristics of the warship.
The aim is, and always has been, certainly in later times, to get the best balance between these various and, I am sorry to say, generally conflicting calls upon weight and space. In other words, even in a new design there is a limit to the extent to which living conditions can


be improved without deterioration of the fighting efficiency of the ship.
The principal difficulty facing us today is that, since the majority of our bigger ships were designed, they have had up-to-date armaments and equipments fitted into them, and in all too many cases this has taken up the space available for accommodation, and in practically all cases they have required an increase in complement.
In spite of those difficulties—anyone connected with the Navy will know that they are very great—a good deal has been done both by the last Administration and by the present one to improve those conditions. In the case of ships which have been fully modernised, living standards have in general been maintained in spite of the additional equipment which has been put into the ships. In the case of the conversions of the anti-submarine frigates "Rocket" and "Relentless" and their successors, it has, I am glad to say, actually been possible to improve the previous standards.
I should not, however, like to convey to the House that the future ships of Her Majesty's Fleet will have luxury accommodation. Sailors do not expect it; but, at the same time, they do expect us to do all that is possible in every way to minimise their discomforts.

Mr. John Dugdale: If the right hon. Gentleman is finishing with that point, I should like to ask him a question. We realise that there is a limit to the amount of living accommodation which there can be in any ship, but within that amount of living accommodation there is a certain proportion allocated to officers and a certain proportion allocated to ratings. During the time that the Labour Government were in power the percentage allocated to ratings was increased. Does that percentage now remain the same?

Mr. Thomas: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow that question to be answered at the end of the debate. I think that the percentage has increased. At all events, I am sure that it has not grown less. A more detailed reply will be given to the right hon. Gentleman at the end of the debate.
As well as the measures for the welfare of officers and men afloat, we are, of course, continuing the essential work

of providing and modernising barracks for accommodation of the Navy ashore. We have extended our plans for married quarters so as to include the building of married quarters at the three manning ports—Portsmouth, Devonport, and Chatham.
I must now say something about general manpower problems. I want to be frank with the House about the particularly difficult situation that we are facing at the moment. I do not suppose that the House or the country realise that nearly one-third of our Regular ratings, excluding National Service men, are under 21 and that another one-third are under 25. So the House will see that we have a great shortage of men with eight years' service and upwards and that their places have to be filled today by abnormally large numbers with below seven years' service.
That situation is obviously extremely serious. The seven-year men are now beginning to come to the end of their engagements in large numbers. We want them to stay in the Navy for at least another five years. If sufficient numbers of the seven-year men stay, we shall then be confident of building up an efficient manpower force and of keeping our recruiting requirements within reasonable limits. I cannot pretend that present indications are encouraging, and unless there is an improvement we shall be faced with a serious loss of experienced men and with a recruiting requirement which we shall find hard to meet.
I very much hope that the recent pay improvements will result in many more men deciding to make the Navy their permanent career and giving to the Service their experience and usefulness. The new pay arrangements are, of course, specially designed to reward those who want and accept the responsibility of a higher rating or rank. The new length of service pay is designed among other things to provide special encouragement to the seven-year men to extend their engagements for another five years and later to re-engage for pension.
We are doing all we can to encourage men now completing 12 years service to re-engage and have extended the re-engagement bounty of £100 until further notice. A number of branches are still short of petty officers and leading ratings. How soon the shortages can be overcome


will depend very much on the numbers of seven-year men who decide to stay in the Navy.
Regular recruiting is on the decline and in 1953 we were 15 per cent, short of our target. When we consider the counter attractions of civil life today, with full employment and the opportunity of getting home every night, the House will understand how much we depend on young men who are prepared to take the rough with the smooth and come into the Service. Unless we can arrest and reverse this trend we may find ourselves short of juniors in the short-term, and our bearing of senior ratings in the more distant future will once again be unsatisfactory.
I can, however, give the House a more cheerful picture of the naval reserves. They are in a healthy state and recruiting is satisfactory. The R.N.V.R. reached its golden jubilee last year—and so did I— but, unlike me, they had to postpone it a year owing to the Coronation festivities, and they will celebrate it belatedly on 12th June this year with a review by Her Majesty the Queen on the Horse Guards Parade.

Commander Harry Pursey: On horses?

Mr. Thomas: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to bring his own horse to the parade, I will certainly make arrangements for him.
Recruitment to the W.R.N.S. is satisfactory and their efficiency remains exceptionally high.
I need hardly tell the House that the Royal Marines have played their full part in the activities of the Fleet all over the world. We have an honourable and gallant addition to the Royal Marines in this House with the entry of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Major Wall), and I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member is as pleased as anyone at this fact.

Commander Pursey: Wait until you hear what I have to say about Kingston-upon-Hull.

Mr. Thomas: As regards officers, hon. Members will be aware that cadet entry is now in a transitional stage. The last competition for the entry of cadets at the

age of 16 will be held in June of this year. We shall then set about increasing the 18-year-old entry to about double its present number. The preparations of regulations governing this new "all-18" entry is well in hand and they will be made widely known in plenty of time for the first competition to be held in October this year.
These regulations will include provision for candidates to be exempted from the written examination conducted by the Civil Service Commission if they have obtained certain passes at ordinary and advanced level in the examinations for the General Certificate of Education and equivalent certificates in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I said last November that I would consider the possibility of introducing a scheme like that of the Royal Air Force to enable boys who show promise to stay on at school after 16 and prepare themselves for entry into the Royal Navy at 18. The House will be glad to learn that I have now decided to introduce a Royal Navy scholarship scheme to take effect next year after the entry at 16 into Dartmouth has come to an end. The details of this scheme will be announced in plenty of time.

Brigadier Ralph Rayner: Those of us who are concerned with Dartmouth College, and its running down, would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can say by what date he will have received the report of the Committee which is considering this matter.

Mr. Thomas: I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend a date. It is a very complicated matter, but I do realise the interest of those in Dartmouth and in the neighbourhood. If I can get that part of the report at an earlier stage than the rest I will do so because I appreciate the feeling about Dartmouth.
We are carrying out in the Admiralty a full review of the early training of officers. As a result, we hope to reach a decision about the way in which cadets of the new entry should be made ready for service in the Fleet as junior officers. This review is part of a wider examination of the whole officer structure of the Navy. The rapid development in the weapons at our disposal now and in the future, involving important changes in the shape of the Royal Navy, makes it


very necessary that we should consider entirely afresh the principles on which the present careers and training of naval officers are based.
As far as the lower deck is concerned, it continues to be a most important source of officer recruitment. There have been more promotions to the general list through the upper yardmen scheme in the last 12 months than in any year since 1945. Promotion at a rather later age to branch officer, which carriers with it a subsequent opportunity for promotion to the general list, has also continued in a very satisfactory manner.
So much for manpower, but I would remind the House that in paragraph 9 of the White Paper on Defence the Government have summarised their policy—to be seen about the world as a strong and well equipped people in a cold war; to deter the aggressor by various means; and to foe ready if hot war should come. Obviously, it is my duty to try and tell the House how this policy affects the Royal Navy.
First of all, there is the Navy's part in providing a deterrent against major aggression and preparations to meet such a contingency, should it unhappily arise. I hope that the House will not accuse me of living in the past when I say that any potential enemy of this country must read the lesson of history as weapon has succeeded weapon down the ages. It is our weakness as well as our strength that this country is an island. Our greatest and most powerful ally is separated from us by the waters of the Atlantic, and whatever the shape of a future war, control of the seas, from America to this country, and to the continent of Europe, must be a basic aim in our strategy.
Safety for our supplies, safety for Europe's supplies, is the task of the Navy. That safety begins with a denial of the sea to the enemy and only if there is evidence that the Navy can and will perform this task can we be satisfied that we have made our contribution to the deterrent. What, then, are we doing? First, we are ensuring that the active Fleet contains the most modern ships and that the reserve Fleet is in good shape. In the open oceans only carrier-borne aircraft can destroy reconnaissance aircraft, provide fighter protection, and in distant waters they alone can hunt out and kill the enemy surface raider and submarine.
I have set out in the Explanatory Statement the new carriers coming into service. All those completing or being modernised after 1953 are expected to have the full angled deck, which will improve their fighting efficiency and enable them to accommodate more aircraft, and the steam catapult and the latest arrester gear, which is necessary for the operation of the modern aircraft then due to come into service.
Despite certain labour shortages, late delivery of equipment and difficulties over design problems, good progress is being made on the construction of frigates and several of them will be undergoing trial before the end of this year. There are now two squadrons of fast anti-submarine frigates converted from destroyers already in the Active Fleet, and some of them are with the training squadrons.
New submarines are to be laid down, and the process of modernising and improving existing submarines is continuing. Our submarine construction is based on the experience of the last war, and all the research and development that has been going on since then. In addition to what I might call the orthodox submarines, two experimental craft using high test peroxide propulsion to provide high underwater speed are nearing completion and are expected to undergo sea trials this year.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is high test peroxide?

Mr. Thomas: As far as I, a layman, can tell, it is nothing more than a concentrated form of hydrogen peroxide, which is what ladies use to turn themselves from brunettes into blondes. What it does to ladies is not for me to say, but I am delighted to be able to tell the House that it does at least make our submarines faster.
The first submarine of this kind, H.M. Submarine "Explorer," as the House knows, has been launched within the last few days, and I will not repeat what has been said about her in the Press. New and improved midget submarines will complete this year. We have also made progress in another field of submarine development, and that is the continued study of nuclear propulsion.
During 1954–55 a large number of the small craft laid down under the 1952 and


earlier programmes will become available. These consist of new coastal minesweepers, inshore minesweepers, fast patrol boats, and seaward defence boats. In spite of delays, 11 of the coastal minesweepers and 22 of the smaller inshore minesweepers will complete during the current year, and many others are approaching completion. At the present rate of progress, the numbers to complete during 1954–55 will approach one ship of each type every week.
The broad picture that I want to give the House and the country today is of the relegation to reserve of the older carriers, frigates, and minesweepers and their replacement by more efficient new construction. Although financial and manpower considerations impose limitations on the size of the Active Fleet, it is true to say that a steady improvement in the material quality of the Fleet is taking place as the post-war building and modernisation programmes progress.
Now I should like to deal with the question of our aircraft. The rearming of the Fleet Air Arm with jet and turboprop aircraft is well under way, and will be nearly complete by the end of this coming financial year. We have already rearmed several of our day fighter squadrons with Sea Hawks, and a strike squadron with Wyvern aircraft. In the coming year we expect the delivery of further large numbers of Sea Hawks, Sea Venoms, and Gannets. The result will be that by this time next year the Sea Fury and the Firefly, which have both served their generation well, will have been virtually eliminated from the front line. The Gannet, which will be the first specialised naval anti-submarine aircraft, will come into squadron service this year.
We will also start on the production of a lighter anti-submarine aircraft, the Sea Mew, the prototype of which hon. Members may have seen at Farnborough last year. In this aircraft a resolute attempt is being made to halt the trend towards large and complicated aircraft. It has been specifically designed for rapid production and ease of operation from the trade protection carriers.
Progress is also being made in the production of the swept-back wing jet fighter to which I referred last year, but it is too early yet for me to say by what date it is likely to be in service. It will be

an aircraft of exceptional performance. It will be equipped with an air-to-air guided missile for air combat, and it can carry an atom-bomb if required.
I think that a special word this year is certainly deserved by helicopters, in which the Navy has taken such intense interest from the first. A squadron of naval helicopters which has been operating in Malaya has earned generous praise from no less a person than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in his Explanatory Memorandum on the Army Estimates.
All I can say, in belated return—as my Explanatory Statement had gone to the printers before his—is that it has been a great honour for the crews of these helicopters to have lifted, since January of last year, no fewer than 10,000 of our fine fighting troops and 300 casualties in these most difficult operations. Helicopters, as I think will be agreed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, are now regarded as quite indispensable in Malaya.
Very considerable advances have been made since the end of the war in new weapons and equipment for all forms of naval warfare, and the next few years will show the fruits of an intensive programme of research and development coming into operational service. Our main efforts have, of course, been directed to attack on enemy U-boats, surface warships, and shipping wherever they may be found, and to the protection of our own shipping from aircraft and mine attack as well as from U-boats and surface raiders.
The latest anti-submarine vessels will be equipped with greatly improved Asdic equipment which controls automatically the new anti-submarine mortar logically developed from the successful Squid, and will very much increase the killing power of the anti-submarine escorts. I mentioned last year that the prototypes of these equipments were fitted in "Rocket" and "Relentless." I am delighted to say that these ships, and their successors, have come fully up to the expectations of the Admiralty.
Our anti-submarine aircraft will be fitted with improved radar for Snort detection and will carry buoys which can be dropped for detecting submerged U-boats. Greatly improved homing


weapons for destroying these U-boats when located will shortly be coming into service. Here I come back to the question of helicopters, because there are great possibilities in the use of helicopters in anti-submarine warfare. Their ability to hover with a locating device suspended in the sea promises us a great improvement in the accuracy with which a submerged submarine can be fixed.
An order has been placed for a twinengined helicopter—the Bristol 173— for use as an anti-submarine helicopter for the Navy. Until this is available, we are using American helicopters and equipments and have already formed our first anti-subarine helicopter squadron to evolve and develop the necessary tactics.
Our submarines are also being provided with much improved Asdics. Also of great importance is defence against the mine menace. That continues to occupy a very prominent place in our research and development programme. Last year I may have sounded despondent on this subject, but we are now going thoroughly into novel and promising new devices for the clearance of all types of mines. I am sorry that I cannot tell the House more today, but I can at least say that though we have a long way to go I believe that we are tackling the problem on wise and very promising lines.
A special effort is being made to improve the defence of the Fleet and merchant shipping against air attack. Steady progress is being made by the Ministry of Supply, for which I am grateful, in the development of a large guided missile for fleet and convoy protection, and the first guided weapon trials ship will be fitted out shortly. It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that guided weapons will be in general service at sea or will supersede the gun as a means of medium and close range defence of the Fleet and convoys against air attack for some years yet. Air defence by carrier-borne fighters and by guns still remains essential for some years ahead.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, referred to our world-wide tasks in the defence debate, and, however far we look ahead, the Navy's task will continue to be to use the sea to impose our will upon the enemy in time of war, to deny him the use of the sea, and to safeguard our own sea communications.
Hon. Members who went to the last and previous Naval Reviews will have seen how the shape of the Fleet has gradually changed in this century, and I have described some of the things we are doing to bring ourselves completely up-to-date, such as developing improved submarines, whose rôle will be to attack, before they can threaten our shipping, the enemy forces including U-boats which put to sea despite our other offensive measures.
I wonder, when the new cadets, in the new Dartmouth entry which I mentioned, become admirals, what kind of a Navy they will see. Weapons may well have changed out of all present knowledge; but, from what I read of the prophecies of scientists today, not only will there be a Navy but it will be a Service of supreme importance. But before those cadets get even their first seagoing command many Changes will have already taken place. We shall have to augment, and, later, to replace, our cruisers and anti-aircraft escorts by ships armed with guided weapons. It will be some time, however, before the modern cruiser will become outmoded.
Changes in naval strategy and naval weapons take a long time to implement, and we must be quite sure, if I may reverse the words of the song, that we are on with the new love before we are off with the old. The Navy must be prepared for war whenever it comes and able to perform its peace and cold war tasks, and there must be no doubt in the mind of any potential enemy that we are on top of the job now and that we are alive in the Royal Navy to the changing needs of this changing age. That potential enemy must also realise that, if the need should, alas, arise, the Navy will fight the next war with the next war's weapons.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I should like to congratulate the First Lord on the third occasion on which he has had the honour of introducing the Navy Estimates. It is a privilege for anyone to introduce them, and he has done so, as he always does, agreeably and courteously. We have no complaint to make of him on that score, nor, indeed, on the score of our dealings with him throughout the year. Indeed, not only from him but from the Parliamen


tary and Financial Secretary and from the Civil Lord we have always had the attention that we like to receive and we know that when we submit cases to them they axe dealt with in the manner we like, even though we do not always get the replies we would like.
I was interested in the First Lord's review especially in the light of the Statement on Defence. The Statement on Defence tried, for the first time, to lift at least a corner of the curtain over the new developments taking place in the world and their consequential effects on tactics and strategy. I know only too well that I am no authority to discuss these matters, but I shall submit certain observations to the House in the hope that if they are inaccurate they will be corrected by those better informed than I, and that if they should have a substratum of truth in them, that may illuminate some corners which the First Lord has not.
Although the First Lord said he was giving us a broad picture I could not think that it was a broad picture of the Navy's rôle. The Statement on Defence says that the Navy has world-wide tasks. Indeed, the First Lord had not spoken more than a moment or so before he, too, was referring to the Navy's worldwide tasks. However, I have a feeling that this phrase is stuck in when nothing else can be thought of to be said I wonder whether as much thought is being given to the role of the Navy in these world-wide tasks as ought to be.
If thought is being given to it, as I am quite prepared to believe it is, then I should like to see more evidence of it, and of the changes that are likely to come in the Navy, and I should be glad if the First Lord or another Minister would try, later, to draw together all these unconnected hints that the right hon. Gentleman has thrown out about hydrogen tests in submarines, air-to-air guided missiles, and all the other things he talked about to make our flesh creep. I should like him to do so in order that we may see what effect all these will have on the Navy's role, because he has not publicly faced the fact that the Navy's role is being increasingly challenged by the other Services.
There are hon. Members associated with the other Services who are ready to challenge the Navy's role. I have some hon. Friends sitting behind me who

are ready to stab me in the back at any moment, and the First Lord had better keep a close watch to his rear, too, because there are plenty of hon. Gentlemen sitting on the benches behind him who simply do not accept the phrase that he used, late in his speech, about the safety of these islands' supplies and those of Europe resting on the Royal Navy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is challenged, judging by the cheers. I think this argument should be thrashed out. It is just not sufficient for us to say that the safety of these islands depends upon the Royal Navy. That is approved by some who believe in the Royal Navy, but heard in rather glum silence by those who say that it is outdated.
I should like the First Lord or the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a genuine picture of how he sees affairs at the present time, how he sees the role of the Royal Navy in preserving the safety of these islands and the safe passage of the 80 million tons of supplies that come here every year. We have not had that picture painted for us yet today. I am going to try to fill in some of the gaps in the sketch. I may do so in an inadequate way, and I apologise in advance. Let us consider the position at the present time so far as the Navy is concerned.
We have one battleship, the "Vanguard," in the Active Fleet, and four in reserve. I suppose that there is fairly general agreement that the battleship was dethroned from its former status in the last war. Yet we have one in the Active Fleet today. What is its role? Why is the "Vanguard" in commission now? What purpose does she serve? What role is she intended to fill later on? She was commissioned about two years ago. I do not know what her company is. I suppose it is about 1,500 men. Her peace-time complement is, I think, 1,600. Perhaps she has not that number. However, I suppose that her company numbers about 1,500.
If the battleship is no longer the core of the fleet, what role is she intended to fulfil? Surely she is not being used merely as an office for the Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet? It would be a rather expensive way of providing an office afloat. I have heard it said that we cannot put the office of the Commander-in-Chief in an aircraft


carrier because aircraft carriers are not designed for that purpose.
It may be that that is true, but there must surely be better ways of providing an office than commissioning a battleship which, as far as I can see from the unrelated statements that the First Lord has made today, has no r61e to play. If it has a rôle to play, I shall withdraw what I have said and be very happy to hear what it is. In that case the First Lord can rely upon me for all the defence he needs. But he has the responsibility for making out a case for commissioning this ship and keeping her in commission.
I know that a great many young men are trained aboard her, and I am sure that they receive good training; but they would get equally good seamanship training if the First Lord commissioned another five, six or seven frigates to do the job. The men would then get in some small ship time, and they might see more seamanship than they will in the "Vanguard."
If it is agreed that the battleship has a very small role to play in a future war, in our balanced and limited Fleet, with the limited amount of money which we can put into it, we need to be satisfied about what the Admiralty is doing with the battleship. The other four battleships are in a very low state of reserve and I warrant that it would take hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions, to put them into a seagoing state.
I turn to the cruisers. Apart from the "Superb" and "Swiftsure," we have about 24 middle-aged or rather elderly cruisers. I believe that the two I have mentioned are the only ones which have been completed since the end of the war. I exclude the "Darings" from this category. Although they have been written up as light cruisers and are called "Daring Class" ships in the Explanatory Statement, they are not cruisers in the sense in which the U.S.S.R. and the United States of America are using that term.
There is controversy about what role these cruisers are to fulfil. Are they designed or able to face the cruisers of the U.S.S.R.? At Spithead, last summer, we saw the magnificent "Sverdlov." She is rated at 13,000 tons, but those who can judge these matters much better than I tell me that that is an underestimate and

that she is nearer 17,000 tons, which is the equivalent of some of the large United States cruisers. They look much of a muchness.
We have about 24 cruisers of between 5,000 and 10,000 tons displacement, armed with 5.25-inch and 6-inch guns. I believe that some of their fire control has been modernised. Is it the view of the Board of Admiralty—and the Minister takes the final responsibility— that these cruisers are to face those of the U.S.S.R. in the event of war? Frankly, I doubt it, but I go no further at the moment.
Now I come to the aircraft carrier. It may be suggested that it is taking the place of the cruiser. That is true, within limits. The aircraft carrier is able to search a much wider area much more rapidly than any one cruiser can do, but I ask the First Lord to note that, at the moment, the aircraft carrier itself is under challenge and under very heavy fire from a great many senior officers in the Royal Air Force—mostly retired, but nevertheless officers of very great weight and experience. [Interruption.]If we have some criticisms to make of them later on, there is no reason why we should not pay them a compliment at the beginning.
If it is the view of the Admiralty that the aircraft carrier, flying off aircraft, can take the place of the cruiser, can the First Lord assure us that the weapons carried by those aircraft are capable of sinking ships of the "Sverdlov" class? Eight cruisers of that class are now being built, with a displacement of between 15,000 and 18,000 tons. If we are to rely on the aircraft carrier, the First Lord should tell us whether it is his view that the weapons provided are capable of sinking that class of ship. Doubts are expressed about this. Many people take the view that the weapon which can be carried in an aircraft is not capable of sinking a cruiser. Can the First Lord give us an assurance about that?
I would also ask him to note that every one of the major units of the Fleet today—the battleship, the cruiser and the aircraft carrier—is either regarded as obsolescent or is challenged. I do not mean in terms of numbers or class, but in terms of its rôle. The argument against the aircraft carrier is that anything that an aircraft can do when operat-


ing from a carrier can be done very much better by a land-based aircraft. That sums up the arguments of the "air boys" fairly well, and their case grows stronger every year. With the development of very long-range aircraft, able to operate from shore bases, the case for the aircraft carrier must be argued very fully if we are to know where we stand in this matter.
This reduces us to a rather critical situation. If the rôle of every one of our major units is under challenge, does the House think that the Navy can exist in a purely defensive rôle, such as is envisaged by units of the anti-submarine and anti-aircraft frigate and minesweeper type? In his war memoirs the Prime Minister wrote at some length about what he regarded as the excessive defensive mentality which he found at the Admiralty from time to time, and which he thought he ought to counteract, and some pretty sharp notes were passed—not wholly one way, because Admirals have a very good flow of language if they are provoked, and some answered back very sharply.
But how much more would a defensive attitude be encouraged if the rôle of the Navy were reduced to that of convoy protection and minesweeping? That is a very real issue, which the House and the country should face and upon which we ought to have guidance from the First Lord, instead of him just telling us that the Navy's rôle is world-wide, that it will carry out its world-wide tasks and the rest. That is not sufficient today.
In the present atmosphere, so far as I can judge—and I hope that I am being fair to everybody—the Navy feels that there is a great deal in the case made out for shore-based, very long-range aircraft. What has the Navy got against this argument? First, it does not trust the Royal Air Force. The Navy does not believe that any Service which is not under its control, and upon which it has to call for aircraft, will be there when it is wanted. It draws upon its past experience and upon its views of the relative importance attached by the Royal Air Force to its various rôles
The pride of the Royal Air Force is now the strategic bomber. Then comes Fighter Command and, a long way down

the list, we have Transport Command and Coastal Command. This is often denied, and it is said that Coastal Command has parity of treatment and is as well regarded in the Royal Air Force as the strategic bomber force, but we cannot get it out of the mind of the Navy that the two Commands are not regarded in the same way by the Royal Air Force. We must face the fact that the suspicion is there and is felt very strongly.
If we couple that feeling of the Admiralty with the fact that if the Navy were deprived of its only offensive weapon it would become a purely defensive Service, we can all see how the Admiralty naturally digs itself in on this question of the right rôle and the right weapon to be employed. I very much doubt whether, in the present atmosphere, we are going to get to the bottom of this controversy about the aircraft carrier and its rightful place. I do not blame the Admiralty, because anybody who has served on the Board of Admiralty always falls over backwards to see its point of view, but I do not think it is any use our hiding our heads in the sand any longer. The attack will go on increasing, and we ought to face it.
I do not forget that there has been a lot of co-operation. When I was at the Admiralty I had the good fortune to go to Londonderry to see the anti-submarine school there, which I thought was very good indeed. But we have two forms of training, two sorts of living accommodation, two forms of recruitment, and all the rest of it, and I do not think that the Fleet Air Arm, as the very junior partner, can ever expect to get the same treatment as the Royal Air Force in the demands which it makes in any direction.
Therefore, I come to the following conclusions. The Royal Air Force and the Navy have a great deal in common. Their rôle is the same. The Navy has no right to exist purely because there has always been a Navy and because it is the Navy. Its right to exist depends upon the fact that it is controlling the sea routes to which the First Lord made reference. That is also true of the Royal Air Force. Both Services are sharing today the rôle of keeping open our communications and of protecting our commerce
Both Services have a great deal in common, and yet at the present time there is more inter-Service argument going on


about this subject—though it is kept down at the top, and is quietened and hushed— than I can remember ever since I have been studying—in a rather faint way— these problems. It may be that in a couple of decades the Royal Air Force itself will be obsolescent. The strategic bomber may well have been displaced within 20 years.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Less than that.

Mr. Callaghan: I defer to my hon. Friend on that matter. It may well be true. It may be that the development of the guided air-to-air, sea-to-air or ground-to-air missile will make piloted aircraft obsolescent. Both these Services have great problems to face during the next 20 years if the resources which they are now being given on an unprecedented scale are not to be misused.
I put it to the First Lord—I see that representatives of the other Services are present—that the time has come when a fresh review should be made of the methods used for protecting our commerce and of keeping our sea lanes open, and that such a review should be raised above the level of an inter-Service wrangle. It should cover the consequences of the development of very long-range shore-based aircraft, and the rôle of the carrier and the cruiser. In the light of the development of that aircraft, such a review would clearly have to take into account the extent to which the North Atlantic Treaty forces modify our needs in any direction.
It should try to visualise just how far the development of guided weapons a decade ahead should influence the direction and pace of our efforts today, because, at the rate at which we build ships, a ship laid down next year will not see service in much less than six or seven years. That is a fact which must be taken into account if the First Lord wants to modernise his cruiser fleet. A committee making such a review should be looking a decade ahead and examining what will take place. It should be a committee at the highest level and should be free to examine the most radical and profound modifications of rôles between the Services. The most radical question it could examine would be whether there is the need for a separate Royal Air Force and a separate Royal Navy. I

merely pose the question because I should not be presumptuous enough to begin to answer it. Neither do I think that any of us in a debate of this sort should.
If, after careful consideration, the committee reached such a conclusion in the light of the development of guided missiles, and, perhaps, the obsolescence of the Royal Air Force, then we should not shrink from making the change, whatever the consequence. I think there is a very strong case for the Government putting in hand such a review and communicating its results to the House and to the country. Who knows, it may even result in some economies which would please my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), as well as some other of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Abolish the Army at the same time.

Mr, Callaghan: I do not want to be too sweeping this afternoon, and, therefore, we will save the Army for next year. I am only putting forward some tentative thoughts which we ought to be considering at the present time and which we ought to discuss in the interests of the nation as a whole.
On the question of manpower, I very much welcome the decision of the Board of Admiralty to restore the right to men in the Service to buy themselves out. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) wrote to "The Times" recently on this subject, and I agree with everything that he said in his letter. I believe that the inability of men to buy themselves out accounts for much of the underlying cause of the trouble on the mess decks recently, because one man unable to buy himself out and with a long period of service in front of him can upset a whole mess deck.
I asked the First Lord a Question the other day about the ages of those who had committed these offences, and also about their average length of service. I received the answer which I expected. Ten out of 12 of them were under 21 years of age, and of those who had signed on for 12 years all but one had more than half their service to do. The discontent of such men is due, perhaps, to the fact that they have joined the wrong Service or are unable to face the undoubted hardships of life in the Royal Navy. Life in the Royal Navy will never


be easy. Therefore, to get out of it these men may commit these acts.
By his decision this afternoon the First Lord has done quite a lot to lessen the discontent and to get rid of the handful of people who are quite unable to settle down to life in the Service. I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his decision to reduce the length of the foreign service commission to 12 months. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary brought that idea back with him when he went to the Far East last summer, and I am very glad that it is now proposed to put it into force over a period of time.
I should like to hear some further details as to how the system is going to work, because, so far as I can see, it is going to mean a drastic overhaul of our methods of providing for the Fleets. Are the rôles of the Home Fleet and of the Mediterranean Fleet to be changed, the Home Fleet being regarded as the training Fleet and the Mediterranean Fleet as the one to go into action? How will it affect their rôles? We should certainly like an explanation of that. I have here in my notes, as two of the things to which I wanted to call the First Lord's attention, the inability of men to buy themselves out and the length of the foreign commission. Now I can wipe both of them out.
However, I want to mention two other things in connection with the length of engagements. I know that the Navy wanted to build up a long-term service, and I think that is a very good idea if it can be achieved. If the policy of allowing men to buy themselves out is applied fairly liberally, it can perhaps still be achieved, but I warn the First Lord that he will create a discontented Service if he gets men to sign on for 12 years under some form of sharp practice. I will tell him what I mean.
Among the Questions which I put down in preparation for the debate, I asked what proportion of Regulars signed on for seven years and for 12 years respectively in 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953. I know that in 1950 and 1951 no particular pressure was put upon men as to whether they signed for seven years or for 12 years. But I have my doubts about 1952 and 1953. Indeed, I go further; I think pressure has been brought to bear on men, perhaps on men who have no strong

views one way or the other, to sign for 12 years, because of the desire for a long-service Navy.
Further, I believe that pressure has been applied in this way: a young man goes to the recruiting office and the man in charge of recruitment says, "You want to sign for seven years? I am sorry. I have no vacancies for seven years but I have one for 12 years, if you care to sign for that period." If my suspicions are regarded as unworthy, I ask the First Lord how he accounts for the figures which he gave me, which show that whereas in 1950 and 1951 38 per cent, and 39 per cent, of the men signed on for seven years, in 1952 and 1953 the total had dropped to 13 per cent, and 12 per cent.—only one-third. There is some reason for that, and I believe I am pretty near the mark. I tell the First Lord that in the long run it will not do much good if he gets people on this basis, because generally they will be disgruntled after a fairly short time.
I now turn to a subject which a number of my hon. Friends will raise. I apologise for the length of my speech. As the First Lord knows and the House no doubt recollects, a committee reviewed the operation of the Naval Discipline Act and decided that a great many reforms should be made. I do not think I am breaking any confidence when I say that in my last eight or nine months at the Admiralty —I was there for only 18 months—I was very busily engaged in reaching decisions on some of the new features which will appear in the legislation. That is about three years ago, and we still have no signs of legislation on that Act which, as the First Lord told me in a reply he gave recently, requires modernising.
The First Lord told me that when a place can be found in the legislative programme he will bring his proposal forward, but I do not think that is good enough. By now he should have reached his conclusions and be fighting for a place in the legislative programme to enable him to undertake the reform of this Act. If I were in a contentious mood this afternoon, I should tell him some of the things which he could well leave out of the programme in order to bring that reform forward, but I will leave that to the imagination of hon. Members opposite whose consciences are as guilty as, from the looks on their faces, they themselves feel.
I hope the House will forgive me for making a quotation, but I wonder whether at the back of the Admiralty's mind there is not an underlying reluctance to bring forward a review of the Naval Discipline Act. I ask this because of a minute which I once saw in the Admiralty's files. I hope that the First Lord will not challenge me on this. Perhaps I may read the minute and then he will see. It reads:
Should our code of laws become a matter of discussion before the House, the Members of which understand little or nothing of sea life in the Navy, I fear it would suffer considerably as the standard of duty and discipline in civil and home life is much relaxed in these days.
What a commentary on the post-war Labour Government. But then I discovered that this minute was written in 1905.
The standard of duty and discipline in civil and home life 
seems to have been relaxing continually. I wonder whether there is not something like this in the back of people's minds today—some thought that the House cannot be expected to understand how the Naval Discipline Act should operate, so let the House not be worried with it.
May I next offer a word of congratulation to the First Lord? If he had to alter the Dartmouth plan, I think he has done it in the right way.

Commander Pursey: Not because he wanted to.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. and gallant Friend should not try to detract from the one compliment which I am paying the First Lord.
I think he took exactly the right decision, and 1 want to say to any ostriches there may be around the Service that if they believe this decision will be altered again, they should take their heads out of the sand. We on this side of the House will stand by it and carry it out, and I believe it will be in the best interests of the Navy.
I will conclude by some questions about the programme of new construction. In March, 1951, it was announced that we proposed to convert 45 destroyers to frigates. Only 10 have so far been completed. What is the programme for the remainder? Thirty-five remain to be completed. The results so far are not much for a substantial three-year rearmament programme. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what the Government

have in mind for the conversion of the remaining 35 vessels?
In March, 1951, it was announced that 25 frigates would be built. As far as I can make out—I may be wrong—only one has been completed; that is, one out of 25 at the end of a three-year rearmament period. What is the programme for the remainder of these frigates? It should have been hurried on, and I am disappointed to learn that only one has so far been completed. I am glad that the minesweepers seem to be doing rather better, and I agree as to the concentration of effort which has been put into them.
The House will be delighted to hear that I leave a lot unsaid. We have a long debate before us. Criticisms which are made of the Navy from any quarter of the House are made with a desire to improve it. A lot of money is going into the Royal Navy and, indeed, into the other Services—more money than ever before in peace-time. There is a great responsibility upon the administration of the Admiralty to see that the use of that money is wisely directed, especially when the Admiralty is calling upon the nation's resources more widely than ever they have been called on before—a great responsibility to see that the pace and direction of effort are right. I hope that when the results are known we shall find that the resources which the Admiralty has had at its disposal have been wisely used for the future as well as for the needs of the present.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: With very great sincerity I crave the indulgence which the House is renownedly so generous in granting to those who try for the first time to contribute to its deliberations.
When I sought to speak in this debate I had it in mind to try to make two points. The first is perhaps a very modest one, but it is one which I believe affects the strength and health of the naval service at its very roots. I want to make a plea for more instruction in seamanship—and, with great respect to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey), who has just left his place, I do not include horsemanship. I mean more instruction in seamanship for ratings who are recruited into the seaman branch of the Service. That instruction should be given by junior


officers who have responsibility as divisional officers for the welfare of the men whom it is their duty to train.
How should this be achieved? In the first place, it is fairly obvious in the case of training establishments. But in the case of ships of the Fleet at sea I suggest that is should be given as an instruction to commanding officers in Admiralty Fleet Orders that, more often than they do, and more often than they like to do or than their first lieutenants like them to do, they should send boats away under oars and under sail, with junior officers and with newly-entered ratings, for training and instruction.
May I explain briefly why I feel that this is of such importance and value? I believe there is a danger that we are developing a Navy without sailors. I am afraid that too many young ratings go to their ships and become immured as little more than street cleaners in a vast iron slum, and that they are divorced from the realities of the sea. In such a Navy, I think that the spirit which keeps it alive must perish.
May I put it in this way? I think that, in the short time I have been a Member of this House and during the time I have been sitting on a Committee upstairs, I have been most impressed by one thing. Many hon. Members who sit on the opposite side of that Committee to me have spent many years in mining. We are considering a mining Bill, and I am sure that they will feel with me the great affinity which exists between, curiously enough, the calling of the miner and the calling of the sailor. They will appreciate that it is not possible in the seafaring profession, any more than in the mining profession, for experience to be gained at second-hand. It is absolutely vital that those who go to sea in ships should really know the fundamentals of their craft at first-hand and become versed in the skill of their calling. For many of them it is a new and temporary calling, but it is a calling in which the people of our land have for generations taken pride and delight.
I also believe that training in seamanship is of incalculable value in the establishment of morale in the Service. I know that I have, and other hon. Members, too, must have seen with the very greatest misgivings reports of malicious damage

in Her Majesty's ships, but I think that anyone who knows the Navy recognises instantly that this is damage which must be laid at the door of faulty morale, and that no question of treason enters into it at all. I believe that the maintaining of naval discipline and good morale, in conjunction, is a most difficult and delicate business.
If I may draw on my own experience for a few moments, it was my lot during the
Second World War to spend some considerable time at sea in a small ship on a particularly arduous and unrewarding type of patrol, and it so happened that my commanding officer allowed me to take the ship's boats away under sail in conditions in which normally it would not have been possible for me to do. I learnt from that, and from the experience that I had with those whom it was my responsibility to lead, that in the satisfying exertions of handling small boats on the sea one found, among those who shared in them, that confidence and mutual respect which is the basis of discipline.
I should like to make this third point in support of my plea for training in seamanship. It is an insurance policy against unnecessary loss of life in times of disaster and crisis at sea. We used to say, with sadness, that it was indisputable that when there was loss of life at sea in the Royal Navy and in the Royal Norwegian Navy during he last war, that when a ship of His Majesty's Navy, as it was then, was sunk, the loss of life was always much greater than when a ship of the Royal Norwegian Navy was sunk.
The reason was no fault of ours. Our men were comparative novices in the ways of the sea, but the men of the Norwegian ships were trained men and seamen from birth, and when it comes to it in the last resort in a fight for survival between men and the sea, it is fundamentally discipline and training in the actual handling of ships on the sea, and small boats above all, that will cause a man to survive or go under.
I believe that we owe it to the young men who volunteer, as they do, to join the naval service to see that they are given that skill and that at homeness in their surroundings which may save their lives.
I feel that in making this point I am not doing so at an inappropriate time because, in the Explanatory State-


ment which my right hon. Friend has published, it is pointed out that owing to the deterioration in regular recruiting in the seaman branch exceptionally large numbers of National Service men are joining the Navy this year, and I feel that, as things are going, that will be the case in the years that lie ahead.
I see that the Leader of the Opposition is not in his place, but I know that hon. Friends of his on both sides of the House will believe me when I say that he will have some sympathy in this matter, because I noticed with great interest that his own son was a valued member of the staff of one of the most helpful organisations which seek to promote exactly the kind of standard I advocate—the Outward Bound Trust.
The second point which I want to make—and I shall not detain the House much longer—is a rather less narrow one and concerns more the broader principles of naval strategy. I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who spoke from the Dispatch Box opposite, will believe me when I say that I have no intention of being controversial, because I did not know what he was going to say. But I am not inclined to alter what I am about to say, and I hope that he will believe me when I say that I am not making debating points on this matter at all.
My right hon. Friend the First Lord is criticised—and I am not speaking of criticism from the other side of the House but of criticism such as that made in a leading article in "The Times" this morning. The gist of the criticism which is laid at his door is, I think, this: that on the offensive side not enough progress is being made. That the Admiralty is content to concentrate upon defensive policy and to develop the strength of minesweepers and frigates and similar vessels at the expense of striking power in the Navy, which has its part to play in the offensive and strategic policy of the Western world as a whole.
I believe that this criticism is ill-conceived and unjustified. In the first place I think that no one, without second sight, could possibly concentrate upon constructing offensive major war vessels and armaments at this time without the risk of finding that vast expenditure was committed to ships and weapons that research

was likely quickly to render obsolete. In the second place, no one, I think, will deny that there are certain enduring realities in regard to the rôle of the Royal Navy in the past and the present, and in the future, so far as one can tell. There can be absolutely no question as to the need in any future war, if such a thing should happen, for huge fleets of minesweepers and anti-submarine vessels, because, whatever the strategy of any future war, this country will still depend on the safe arrival in its ports of millions of tons of shipping on which our lives depend.
For that reason, an enemy is bound to try to prevent the ships reaching our ports, and the best methods—and I do not see these methods being fundamentally altered in the future—of preventing these ships arriving are, first, mines and, secondly, the submarine, or U-boat. Therefore, if there is to be any choice in the emphasis between offensive and defensive strength in the Royal Navy as to which should be perfected and developed first, I am sure that we are right to concentrate now on bringing our minesweepers and frigates to the maximum strength and the maximum perfection.
At the same time, I think that we should have our minds open to other things in the future. I listened to the debate on the Air Estimates in this House and it was a chastening experience. I do not mean in the physical sense, although we sat up all night, indeed I must say—I hope without being misunderstood by hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench below the Gangway opposite—that, although it was a chastening experience, it was rendered not altogether unenjoyable by the virtuosity and skill with which they kept us up and detained us for so long.
As one who has been afloat at sea, I suggest that it would have been very much less chastening if hon. Members had had the good sense to provide themselves with hammocks, as they would have done in the Royal Navy, because the Palace of Westminster is so constructed that it is admirably suitable for the slinging of hammocks across the corridors and lobbies. That is a reform which the House might consider in the future.
In saying that the debate on the Air Estimates was a chastening experience, I


mean that to one who, by habit, regards the Royal Navy as a bulwark which is not to be challenged in the defence of this country, it was chastening to find it brushed aside by hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who spoke as though it was only in the air that we had to consider the strategy with which to conduct any future war. This is not so. I believe that the ultimate striking power that is to be developed in the West or in any nation that brings its military potential to the greatest height is bound to be achieved in a combination between the sea and the air arms.
While, therefore, for the time being the Admiralty is right to concentrate upon what it knows to be vital—the development of the defensive role of the Navy, which cannot toe denied and will always be required—we should at the same time feel that future developments will depend upon the researches of which there are only dark hints in the Explanatory Statement, and, also, that they will depend very largely upon the searching and radical thought which, if I may say so, right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides, have to give to the role which the Navy should play.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: It affords me particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) and to congratulate him upon his maiden speech. He represents a constituency in my native county of Essex and I am sure that all of us in the House will agree that he spoke with a fluency, knowledge and humour which will encourage us all to listen to him again.
The First Lord and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) devoted a good deal of their speeches to the men and ships of the Royal Navy. I join with them in their tributes to the Royal Navy, but the House will expect me to turn my attention to the Royal naval dockyards. These dockyards in their condition today would not command pride from any of us. The First Lord himself said last year that they were congested and old-fashioned and had an undue proportion

of old plant. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right when he says that we have an improved economic situation, the First Lord should have been sufficiently strong in his demands for a higher proportion of the capital investment that was available.
My hon. Friend said that a lot of money had been set aside for the Admiralty and that it is how this money is spent that matters. I do not think it is being spent in the best possible way. Much more could be done in the dockyards if there were greater efficiency and if there were a tendency to look at things which cost more money than they ought to do. I speak only from experience and I do not say that these are substantial matters, but they are indications of the unnecessary waste that takes place.
As the First Lord knows, the Royal Marine Barracks, Chatham, are unoccupied for the first time in 200 years. Had these buildings been used, there would have been no waste, but they have been neglected and are rapidly deteriorating. That famous parade ground has weeds on it for the first time. I know that it has now been given to the Army, but surely the First Lord should have considered more fully the proposition that I made to him earlier, when the Chamber of Trade wanted to inspect the site in order that it could be considered for industrial purposes. We did not have a very good reply from the First Lord, who was not at all sympathetic. All I can say is that the ratepayers of the town are losing about £3,000 a year. I should like to know what will now be the cost of putting these barracks into a reasonable condition. I imagine that it would be very high. Not only are the citizens of the borough suffering locally, therefore, through higher rates, but they have to pay more taxes nationally because of this kind of neglect.
I hope that the First Lord is not so doctrinaire that he believes that private enterprise must come into the dockyards also. More private enterprise work appears to be being done in the dockyards today than hitherto. This would not be a bad thing if it was being done cheaper, but I have some illustrations which show that the cost is heavier, and not less, as a result of private enterprise doing some of the work in the dockyards.
There is the "Ausonia" depot ship and there is the gunnery shop in Chatham Dockyard, both of which are being painted by outside contractors. Their workmen get higher pay than those in the dockyard, and they have to come down from the north of England and are given a subsistence allowance. Not only does this cost the Admiralty more money, but the permanent men in the dockyards are becoming discontented, which is not a good thing.
I am told, furthermore, that at the Royal Naval Armaments Depot, at Lodge Hill, tugs are being repaired by private enterprise. I am trying to ascertain the cost, and if it proves to be higher it will fortify the instance I have already given. The First Lord is really not giving his whole attention to the dockyards, but is concerned rather with what appear to be petty party doctrinaire views.
I should like to make an appeal about a local matter which could be a cause of extreme danger. The House will recall the tragic accident in Dock Road, Chatham, when many young Royal Marine cadets lost their lives. At the Pembroke Gate the conditions really are bad, and time and time again the trade union representatives have asked that they should be put right. I ask the First Lord to give his attention to this matter before we have another disaster in the area.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The right hon. Member will know that the lighting in Dock Road, which is in my constituency, in Gillingham, is now thoroughly satisfactory. I am sure he would not want to imply that nothing has been done there.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member must be aware that I am informed about local government matters. A local government responsibility is not a matter that I should today raise in the House. What I am discussing is the responsibilty of the Admiralty and has nothing to do with the lighting in Dock Road.
To turn to construction work in the dockyard, I was very pleased to hear this afternoon, and to read earlier in the Papers, about the launching of the "Explorer." It was done by private enterprise and I am sure that the standard of workmanship is of the highest. There is, however, a term that is always used in the Admiralty, with which we are all familiar and which I strongly support:

that we must always preserve the war essential. This means that more building has to be done in the Royal dockyards if they are to retain the skill of the craftsmen, technicians and others.
There is a tendency for those people to drift away from the dockyards. I do not have the figures for the apprentices, but it would be most revealing to know the number of young men who have been trained by the Admiralty and who, two years after serving their apprenticeships, leave the dockyards and go elsewhere. This is a very bad thing from the viewpoint of the preservation of the war essential.
Prior to the new submarine, the "Explorer," the last submarine that was launched was the "Acheron "—built at Chatham Dockyard. It was a magnificent ship and is the only one to have dived with a Prime Minister aboard. The First Lord may recall that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition went down in the submarine on one of its exercises, which in itself is an example of the confidence in this well-manned and well-built ship from Chatham Dockyard. We would like more work to go there so that this kind of workmanship can be maintained.
I should like to refer to one other matter, the question of staggered holidays. I am told that if the holiday period is now to be closed instead of staggered as before, it will mean, in the case of Chatham, that for two weeks ships which would otherwise have gone there would be diverted—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

5.30 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Act, 1954.
2. Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Act, 1954.
3. Royal Irish Constabulary (Widows' Pensions) Act, 1954.
4. Merchant Shipping Act, 1954.
5. Civil Defence (Electricity Undertakings) Act, 1954.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Navy Estimates, 1954–55

Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley: Before we were called to another place, Sir, I was talking about the holiday situation in the dockyards. The trade unions have had imposed upon them what is known as a closed holiday period. I was about to make a point in the interests of economy. The overheads go on all the time, and if we are not keeping the yards fully employed during the entire year and closing down for those two weeks, it means additional expenditure.
I want also to stress that both the Labour Governments and the Conservative Government have been trying to get public opinion to agree to staggered holidays as being desirable in the interests of the country, and it seems to be a bad thing that the Admiralty should depart from that standard if we are to meet the wishes of those who have given this matter careful consideration.
I now want to refer to the details given in the last Estimates by the First Lord about the strength of the Soviet fleet. What the right hon. Gentleman failed to give us last time was enough information about mine-laying potentialities which he said he could not give for security reasons. This afternoon we have heard that mine-laying and submarines are really the menace, so he ought to be able to tell us more about it. What is the security involved? The Russians know what they have got. The First Lord certainly gave us more information about our defence, but last year he said that what was disturbing him was that he had not been able to organise all the antisubmarine and counter-mine work which was necessary. Can he assure us that the words he uttered last year no longer apply and that we can look forward with more hope to safety in the future?
I dislike saying this, but I believe that the Royal Navy is becoming the Cinderella of tine Services. We have a Minister of Defence who is a great soldier. I have no doubt that he tries to be fair, but he is obviously biased and cannot help being so because of his training and upbringing. As far as the Secretary of State for War

is concerned, we all know him to be a gallant, bold adventurous man who won the Victoria Cross. But when we come to the Royal Navy we find that we have a Minister who is not forceful enough, who is not doing all that is necessary for the Royal Navy, which will always be needed.
There are powerful reasons why the Air Force and the Navy should be brought closer together with one end in view, to serve the country best. At the Spithead Review I was distressed at being told constantly that the Royal Navy is now part of the Royal Air Force. It is true that we could see nothing but aircraft carriers but, in the interests of strategy, to protect our trade routes, and for many other reasons, the Royal Navy has a formidable part to play. I therefore want to see the First Lord pressing more energetically the claims of the Service which he represents in this House, which is still the senior Service.

5.46 p.m.

Major Patrick Wall: As I rise to address this House for the first time, Mr. Speaker, I take refuge in a time-honoured tradition and crave the indulgence of the House as I set sail for the first time on what are, to me, uncharted waters. I am particularly pleased that I have managed to catch your eye, Sir, on these Navy Estimates for not only have I served 16 years in the Royal Marines but I now have the honour to represent a part of the City of Kingston-upon-Hull, the third port of this country. Many of my constituents axe fishermen and they know from hard experience the true worth of the work of the Royal Navy in peace and in war. Two weeks ago we had the privilege of welcoming H.M.S. "Truelove," a vessel of the Fishery Protection Squadron, whose task it is to see that our fishermen proceed on their lawful occasions unmolested.
I shall not start by saying that I will take up the time of the House for only a few moments. If you will forgive me, Sir, for interjecting a note of levity, in the short time I have been in this House I have already learned to what lengths such a statement may lead. I want to deal with three main points: first, the men who man our ships; secondly, the problem of what is now called amphibious warfare; and. thirdly, a word about the


problems of the Corps in which I had the honour to serve, the Royal Marines.
On the question of the men who man our ships, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has already referred to the sabotage, or alleged sabotage in Her Majesty's ships, which we all deplore so much. I entirely agree that this is caused by young men who, for reasons best known to themselves, join the Service but, once in it, find that it is a disciplined Service, that it requires team work, and that team work inevitably means self-sacrifice. These young men have found that they were not able or capable of making one of the team, so they have had recourse to these violent methods of obtaining their discharge. If the House will permit me, I will quote a paragraph from a letter received recently from a friend of mine on board one of Her Majesty's ships, as follows:
The hopeless misfits, the anti-social, the homesick child, make these pathetic efforts, misnamed sabotage, to draw attention to themselves and endeavour to obtain release. They are not representative of the whole.
Indeed they are not representative of the whole, and I am certain that their problem can be solved along the lines mentioned by the First Lord this afternoon, namely, by the reintroduction of the privilege of discharge by purchase. I think I am speaking for all hon. Members of the House in welcoming this decision. These misfits are not representative of the Service as a whole, but, nevertheless, I believe that there is a certain unsettled feeling in the Royal Navy today. This is due to many things —the aftermath of war, full employment and high wages ashore, increased mechanisation and specialisation and, possibly above all, the extreme youth of the members of the lower deck in the post-war Navy.
I should like to make certain suggestions as to possible means of overcoming this feeling of frustration. The first and most important step has been taken in this House this afternoon in the statement by the First Lord that the general service commission of one and a half or two years is to be reintroduced. A ship's company is a team, and no team can play well or work well when its members are being continually changed. Once this continual turnover is stopped a team spirit will grow and a man will

become identified with his ship, and no sailor will willingly let down "his" ship.
The second step involves the question of manpower. At the moment there is a shortage of manpower and most of our ships, certainly the larger ones, are manned with reduced complements, yet they are still expected to operate at or near peak efficiency. This involves great strain not only on officers but on petty officers and men. No one likes more than I to see a large number of ships in commission, but I suggest to my right hon. Friend that a policy of manning fewer ships with larger complements might produce dividends by creating happier ships' companies and improving the well-being and efficiency of the Fleet.
I should like to deal briefly with certain individual problems of the men who man our ships. First, there are the problems of the senior officers. Here the main problem is the lack of sea time. There were 645 commanders on the Navy List in September last year and only 90 were serving in command or in executive appointments at sea. This meant a ration of sea time of something like one and a quarter years in five. The position of the captains' list is even worse. The ration of sea time in their case was 22 months in nine years.
I appreciate that this is an almost insoluble problem in the days of a small-ship Navy and a large Fleet Air Arm, but I should like to contribute one suggestion with all humility in the hope that it may be of assistance. It is that attention might be given to the manning of some of our larger fleet auxiliaries by Royal Navy personnel on the lines that are followed by the United States Navy. It would not be as pleasant to command an oiler as a destroyer, but at least it would give our officers a greater amount of time at sea.
As to the younger officers, there has been a certain amount of criticism in the Press, which may or may not be well founded, that they are tending in these post-war years to get some distance away from their men. If there is any truth in that allegation, I suggest that it is because they are marrying at a younger age than was customary pre-war and that it is very difficult for them to keep their homes going and to fulfil their Service commitments. I believe that the


announcement made last week of increased pay will help very much to prevent this conflict of loyalty.
The chief petty officers and petty officers are, as always, the backbone of the Service, but since the war they have left in large numbers. I hope sincerely that the pay increases announced last week will serve to check this trend. If it does not, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he turns his attention towards the question of petty officers' pensions. These are long service men and they realise that their commercial value in civil life is not very high at the end of their second period of engagement. Therefore, they go out after 12 years to earn sufficient money on which to live in their old age. If the Service gave them adequate pensions they would probably sign on for their second period of engagement.
The last men with whom I should like to deal are the seamen. There has been a great deal of correspondence and talk about the relative merits of accommodation in the ships of the British Navy and in the ships of the American Navy. In the British Navy we have a mess deck which the seaman can call his own home and that of his mates. The American Navy goes in for rather more grandiose ideas and its men lose the homely touch of the mess deck. I know that our constructors are facing a very difficult problem in trying to put a vast amount of new equipment in a restricted space. I ask the First Lord, however, to try to give accommodation on the mess deck a higher priority than it receives at present.
My right hon. Friend has spoken already on the subject this afternoon and I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) who spoke of slinging hammocks in the Palace of Westminster. Hammocks are slung on the mess decks of H.M. ships in every conceivable place and I have heard men complain very rightly that they were unable to obtain an adequate amount of sleep because a hammock was slung, for instance, near a hangar or the aircraft lift or adjacent to the flight deck of a carrier. There is also the complaint that fresh water has to be rationed at sea. These things are very important, and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether the

degree of priority given to accommodation on mess decks cannot be raised. It has been truly said that the Service man is our country's best ambassador. It is equally true that a contented man is the Service's best recruiter.
I turn now to the question of amphibious warfare, which was known as combined operations. I believe that a study of our history shows that at the start of a war we never have a force available and capable of putting into effect a maritime strategy. I wonder whether history is repeating itself again. Though, very probably, we shall see nothing on the scale of the Normandy invasion in the future, I believe that in the early stages of a war the use of atomic weapons may enable us to break through on the enemy coastline and, provided the Army is carried in mobile covered carriers, it might be possible to land and achieve considerable penetration. Added to that, the knowledge that we could land a force anywhere on the vast coastline controlled by a possible enemy would cause that enemy to tie down great numbers of men for defence purposes.
If we ever reach the stage of "broken-backed" warfare which we discussed in the House last week, these special ships and landing craft would be invaluable for landing stores and food on the beaches of this country once our ports had been put out of action. This subject is possibly not appropriate for a debate on the Navy Estimates, it is more a question for a defence debate, but I submit that, though the First Lord is not responsible for amphibious warfare, he is responsible for the provision of amphibious ships and craft.
I have looked through the Navy Estimates very carefully to discover what is being spent on new amphibious craft and I have found very little. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that we are not entirely living on our fat and that new LST and LCT are being produced, that the existing LCT can carry the new heavy Army tank, and that the new DD tanks and other "funnies" will fit into craft now in use? At present, we have no modern raiding craft. Are steps being taken to build some?
The LCA with which we are still operating are falling to bits. I speak


from personal experience. Are the replacement craft being designed and— more important—being built? The operation of these minor landing craft is the task of the Royal Marines. The amphibious school at present situated in Langstone Harbour is rapidly silting up. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the long-awaited move to Poole is at last to take place?
That brings me to my final point, the Royal Marines. Their main problem is one of recruiting. This has become a vicious circle which works as follows. The teeth to tail figures of the Royal Marines are better than those of the Royal Navy as a whole. This means that a greater proportion of the men are employed on operational tasks such as the manning of Her Majesty's ships, Commando Brigade, Rhine Flotilla, and so on, and fewer employed at home in barracks, training establishments and other administrative tasks.
This is largely due to the fact that the Royal Marines have adopted the functional system as opposed to the old home ports system of the Royal Navy. It is very satisfactory to have more men in the operational teeth than in the administrative tail, but that leads to increased disturbance and no assurance that, when a man has finished his foreign service and comes home, he may be stationed near his home port, where, probably, his wife has established a home.
The whole position is aggravated by the reduced Vote A strength shown in the Estimates we are debating today. I am told that this is not caused by financial stringency but by lack of manpower, So we have the vicious circle, more on operational tasks, more disturbance, less home service and inevitably fewer recruits. I believe there are some ways of overcoming, or at least of reducing, these problems. The Marines are the Navy's handy men who, at short notice, can be turned to soldiers, sailors or parachute troops. Inevitably, when any new naval task arises, from the Rhine to the Falkland Islands, the Navy has not only to "tell it to the marines" but to give it to the Marines. But it must be borne in mind that if so small a Corps accepts too many commitments it means more foreign service, more disturbance and strain all round which, in turn, must reflect on recruiting figures.
If it is true that Marines suffer a greater disturbance than their opposite numbers in the Royal Navy, is it right that the allowance of married quarters should be tied down to a small and fixed percentage of the Navy's allocation? More married quarters in Royal Marines establishments would help in this problem of recruiting. Cannot something be done to improve the recruiting propaganda for the Royal Marines? For the moment they tend to be mentioned as an afterthought after the Royal Navy. This is particularly true, as I know from experience, when we are concerned with liaison, with schools, sea cadet units and other organisations.
Uniform is of great recruiting value. Could not full dress be brought back on the same lines as in the Brigade of Guards? I believe that, initially, it costs the same to kit-up a marine as to kit-up a seaman, but, after the initial issue, more money is spent on the seaman than on the marine. Could not the money saved be devoted to improving the quality of the uniform, or possibly in introducing an open-necked blue tunic?
The Volunteer Reserve of the Marines can be of great recruiting value. These men are civilians and they go for two weeks training a year. If this training is made interesting and not cramped by financial considerations these men will go back and shoot a terrific line about what they had been doing. That would be extremely good value in encouraging youngsters to join the Service. I repeat that the contented man is his Service's best recruiter.
I conclude by saying that in these days of supersonic warfare and the atom bomb the Royal Navy is apt to be forgotten. We should, however, not forget the submarine which, twice in our lifetime, has very nearly brought this country to her knees. The safeguarding of sea communications is now the joint task of all three Services and I submit that the Navy still plays the major part. Without the Royal Navy the aircraft of the R.A.F. could not fly and the Army could not move, except on its feet. There i* nothing wrong with the senior Service which cannot easily be put right. I believe that the statement of the First Lord today will prove of great encouragement to all ranks of the Royal Navy.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I do not know whether, in his 16 years' service with the Royal Marines, the hon. and gallant Member for Haltemprice (Major Wall) faced any ordeals comparable with the one through which he has just come so successfully. If he did, and got through those ordeals as successfully as he did through this one, he must have been a very fine officer indeed. The hon. and gallant Member spoke factually about something which he knows. He has not so much made a maiden speech as a serious contribution to this debate. I welcome him as a representative of the very great corps with whom he served for so long, and I believe we all agree that he will be a very effective Member of Parliament.
I agreed with a very great deal of what the hon. and gallant Member said. Like him, I have been interested and disturbed by the reports which we have been reading in the Press during the last 12 months about dissatisfaction in the Navy—instrument smashing and all that. When I read those reports I usually tended to think of them as exaggerated newspaper stunts because, in my short experience of the Navy, I came to the conclusion, for what it is worth, that the Navy handles men better than either of the other two services. Despite the fact that conditions in war-time were foul and the pay disgracefully low, we all managed to have developed in us the feeling that we were all in the same boat, or the same ship—as literally we were.
After thinking over these recent disturbances, I realised that people like myself and other hon. Members who have not had Service experience in the Navy since the war have to realise that there are tremendous differences between service in the Navy at present and in wartime. In war-time we were often in danger, and that had a wonderful effect in the way of providing a sense of unity. As ratings, we knew perfectly well that the officers had several privileges, such as the privilege of gin. The skipper had living space about equal to half the space allotted to 60 ratings but we knew that he had responsibilities and that if the ship were torpedoed he would be no better off than we would be. There was the unifying feeling of danger.
At least equally important was the release that came with safety and the

obliviousness that came on arrival in safety. Once safe after a period of danger, we did not really notice that conditions were so bad. I remember our washroom in a destroyer where the area for 150 men was about the size of the Table of this House, but we did not bother about that very much because, the moment we got into port and were safe, it was so nice to get any sort of a wash. Therefore, the conditions did not worry us very much.
Thirdly, in war-time every member of a ship's company had a feeling of immediate purpose, that he had a real job to do. We used to be given some pretty peculiar jobs on occasions during war-time. I remember once having to wash the oil off the side of the ship and watch a choppy sea put it back again. I remember, on another occasion, when we knew that a bombing attack was coming which would make an absolute shambles of the ship, even if we were not actually hit, being set the task of polishing the brass on the quarter deck. But we felt that action was coming and that it was far better to brood over the "Bluebell" than over the bombs.
There was a sense of immediate purpose, but there was something even more important than that. It was that when we were serving in war-time we had also a sense of over-all purpose. We really did feel that the Navy had an important and a major job to do in the scheme of that war, and that in a real sense the safety and the welfare of the Realm depended upon us.
Today none of those things exist. There is none of the community spirit that comes from danger. There is none of the relief that comes from safety, and, partly because these things do not exist, the conditions under which men serve become especially important. The contrast between the conditions for the ratings and the conditions for the officers glares at the ratings in a way which does not obtain in war-time.
From direct experience I know that a great deal has been done to improve the conditions of the Service. Fairly recently I was aboard what I must still call a "Daring Class" destroyer—I do not know its official name now. As usual, we went to inspect the lavatory and washroom, which always seemed to me to be a most important section of the ship. I


found them an absolute paradise compared with what I had seen on "I" and "V" and "W" class destroyers. But in my opinion some of these alleged improvements are not good things at all. Bunks are being put in. One of the great virtues of the hammock—one of many— is that it takes up air space which would not otherwise be used, whereas a bunk takes up deck space and tends still further to cramp the quarters of the crew.
Furthermore, as I think the First Lord himself mentioned, though the designers start off with the best will in the world, remembering that men have to man these ships, before the vessel is actually in commission so many new gadgets have been invented that all the extra space given to the crew is taken over by radar equipment and the like. I know of one destroyer where at the last minute—I do not know why—they decided to put in a refrigerator, and the only space which could be found to accommodate it was in the boiler room. That is the kind of thing which is making it difficult to obtain good conditions for men at sea.
Then there is the question of pay. I know that pay is a lot better than it was when—I was about to say in my young days, because all this seems so long ago—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It is.

Mr. Mallalieu: Well, it is not so long ago as all that. There is still a certain amount of mean-mindedness in some respects regarding pay in the Service. Only this morning I received a letter from the mother of a petty officer. I have not been able to check the facts in this letter, but she states that her son went into the Navy as a stoker to do his National Service. He liked the life and decided to reengage, I imagine for a short-service period of five years. At the end of it he was to get £100. At the end of that time he was a stoker petty officer with first-class papers and he took his £100. He used that money as part of a deposit for a bungalow for his mother, who was a cripple.
Then he said, "I still like this life and I would like to go on with it." No one asked him to re-engage, but he volunteered for a further term. He was told by the authorities that he could carry on if he liked, with his qualifications and all the rest of it, but that he would have

to pay back the £100. He had not £100 but he was still keen to go back, and so the Navy is taking 10s. a week from his pay until that £100 is paid. If that story is true—and as I say, I have not yet been able to check it—it is an example of mean-mindedness which will make it less likely that other people will sign on for a further term of service.
Apart from pay and conditions, there is a much bigger problem which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) faced up to bravely. It is that at the present time, unlike wartime, there is no sense of purpose in the Navy. Battleships have gone—quite rightly I think. Carriers are likely to be obsolete also. It is only escort ships and other small ships that have, or are likely to have in the foreseeable future, any real job to do. In fact the Navy is the Senior Service only in the sense that old grandpapa, sitting in the chimney corner and nodding his head, is the titular head of the family.
That sort of feeling is doing immense harm, and it is absolutely essential that the First Lord should say something much more clear and distinct about what the Admiralty foresees as the future rôle of the Navy than the kind of bromides which he dished out this afternoon. This uncertainty is having a serious effect upon discipline. I am no martinet. I dislike the discipline of my party Whips on many occasions. I never believed in the Captain Bligh sort of discipline in the Navy or anywhere else—

Mr. Callaghan: Oh, yes, the hon. Member did.

Mr. Mallalieu: I believed in orders being obeyed, as I once told my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East.
But generally speaking, Admiralty discipline, even as measured out by me to my hon. Friend, if firm, was tolerant. But there was one thing which in the Navy was an absolute rule. If you were given a direct order by an officer, a petty officer or a leading hand, you did it first and argued about it afterwards. That seemed to me to be absolutely essential, however silly the order happened to appear.
I am told that now that is not being carried out. In recent weeks I have taken


the trouble to talk to a number of petty officers and leading hands. Time after time a petty officer has told me that he has given a man a direct order and has been told by the man what to do with his order, in front of a large section of the ship's company. The man has then been taken aft, only to receive a caution, while the petty officer got the "bottle." If that is the general practice it will have a bad effect upon the Service.
These men told me that they feel that today officers are trying lead a quiet life. One or two have even hinted that instructions have been sent from the Admiralty to the effect that an appearance of a happy ship should be given by keeping the crime sheets clean. If that be so it is absolutely fatal to the maintenance of efficiency in ships. But I think it more likely that the explanation is this feeling of uncertainty from which everyone in the Navy is suffering. The officers feel that there is less incentive to maintain the traditional, tolerant, but firm discipline which I admired when I experienced it myself.
The Admiralty must make up its mind about what purpose the Navy is to fulfil in the foreseeable future and, having done so, must let that knowledge go to all ranks so that they may see what job the Navy will have. Furthermore, the Admiralty must make up its mind to adjust the Navy, both in its size and in its activities, to the new rôle.
I was glad to hear the First Lord's comments on the constant changes which have taken place in personnel. I know a man who in the past year has had no fewer than nine drafts. That kind of turnover makes it impossible for ratings to settle down and form roots and for officers to display any qualities of leadership. How the First Lord intends to do what he says about this I do not know, but I was delighted to hear him say that he is setting about stopping this procedure.
We must do everything we possibly can to improve the conditions of men serving at sea. As I have so often said in the House, we must make human beings a first charge upon the Admiralty Vote. We must do what we can to be more generous-minded about pay, but above all we must decide what use, if any, the Navy will be in future years

and make that use fully known so that everybody may understand what their job will be. If we do not do that, there will be no possibility whatever of reviving what used to be a most excellent thing about the Navy and one of the greatest experiences in my life—the sense of being part of a ship's company.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Astor: I hope that the hon. Member for Hudders-field, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his remarks. I will confine my remarks to Her Majesty's dockyards in general and the Devonport Dockyard in particular.
I congratulate the First Lord on having been able to start a long-term plan for the modernisation of dockyards, something which has been requested by hon. Members on both sides in debates for many years. I am sure all those connected with the dockyards will be grateful to the Government and will congratulate them on having gone so far to meet the demands to modernise the dockyards.
I want the First Lord to consider two points of detail. The first concerns the apparent misuses of some ex-naval chief electricians in the dockyards. To understand this problem hon. Members must bear in mind that it is the electrical departments in the dockyards which are expanding more than any other. There is therefore considerable concern among ex-naval chief electricians and T.G. Ms. who find that they can get employment in the dockyards only as labourers. This point has been put to me on several occasions by men who have had up to 25 years' service in the Navy, some with 10 or 12 years' service as chief electricians and, who, because of the existing regulations about apprenticeships, are now working as labourers.
Of course, I should be the last person to try to start an argument of Naval loyalty versus union loyalty. It is pointed out that if the existing regulations are to be changed, many people in the yards who are electricians' mates ought to be upgraded first. I only ask my hon. Friend to consider the situation because I have put it to him several times and have not had a very satisfactory answer. There is genuine concern in the yards about this matter.
The next point I wish to make concerns the system of closed holiday


periods. I recognise that the Admiralty has forceful arguments on its side to show that much money will be saved by this system. I understand that it will be saved because the maintenance of the dockyards will then be done on 14 consecutive days and not at week-ends. Overtime and double overtime has to be paid on Saturdays and Sundays. There will also, I understand, be a saving in the continual drain of manpower from the various departments over a long holiday period.
That may be true, but there is great feeling among the dockyard cities and the men that it will not be as satisfactory for them, and I ask the First Lord whether he will call for a comprehensive report at the end of the year to find out the feelings not only of the Admiralty but of the unions and the local authorities as to the success or failure of this system. I do not know what arguments can be advanced to show that it will benefit the men. The only argument in this connection which I have heard is that they experienced it in 1939 and earlier, but I do not think that is a very good argument.
I wonder whether those who have taken the decision have considered what it is like when 20,000 people—as will be the case in Devonport Dockyard, many of them my constituents—are using the same clubs, cinemas, public houses, buses and utility services at the same time. They all do approximately the same things and very few leave Plymouth for their holidays. It may not be a very satisfactory way of spending a holiday. That is a point which must be considered.
We should also consider the view of the dockyard cities. It is easy, in Whitehall, to forget how interdependent are the lives of dockyards and dockyard cities. I will quote no lesser authority Chan the present Admiral Superintendent at Devonport, a distinguished sailor. Sir Philip Enright, who stressed this point publicly the other day when he said in that dockyard that there were no fewer than four lord mayors, six aldermen, 13 councillors and two magistrates for the City of Plymouth. I make that point to show how interdependent these two organisations are.
I am not convinced that the dockyard cities will benefit by this system, because the closed period will fall in July, August and September at a time of tourist traffic.

Will the First Lord give an assurance that he will call for a comprehensive report? If possible, he could show it to hon. Members on both sides of the House, but if not he could study it and tell us his reaction before deciding to go on with this system. In the interests of the Admiralty it is essential that the dockyards and the dockyard cities should keep the closest and best possible liaison.

6.30 p.m.

Commander Harry Parsey: I propose to deal with a subject which has not yet been touched on by hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House, and that is the shortage of officers and, of course, the methods of entry and selection which follow from that. Recent debates in this House, particularly the debate last summer on the report on cadet entry, led many people to assume that this question of the shortage of entries into the officers ranks of the Navy was a new one. In fact, it has always been with the Navy, and the main reason for that is that the Navy has always been interested in narrowing too closely the field of selection.
All inquiries during the last century, from the Crimean and Baltic wars of 1854—and those were only a day or two ago, or a matter of a century—after which continuous service was introduced for ratings, have shown that the field was too narrow, and there were always recommendations for improvements. At one time there was a bright idea that the Navy was not getting enough entries from the sons of parsons, and special bursaries were introduced to increase such entries. It is not on record what the results were, and I would not like to lower this debate by telling the House what it was; but it was not a good idea.
Fifty years ago Admiral Sir John Fisher, later Lord Fisher, put on record in his book "Records," at great length, quite firmly and factually, why the Navy never could get sufficient officers. The main point is that the Navy never went the right way about getting them. Admiral Fisher stated:
Officers will be drawn exclusively from well-to-do classes. Democratic sentiment will wreck the present system in the long run, if it is not given an outlet. But let us take the far higher ground of efficiency: is it wise or expedient to take our Nelsons from so narrow a class? 


He went on to say:
The present system admits the Duke's son if he is fit, but excludes the cook's son whether he is fit or not.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman permit me to intervene?

Commander Pursey: Certainly, let us have a free field with no favours. I am ready to take on all comers.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman admit that Lord Nelson was a parson's son?

Commander Pursey: I left that point long ago. I would seriously recommend to the hon. Gentleman that he should pay attention to the time factor, and press button B at the right moment and get his penny back. I have no intention of going back five minutes at a time, and having my theme upset by irrelevant nonsense. Lord Nelson is not the only admiral in the British Navy.
I was saying, when I was interrupted, that Lord Fisher wrote:
The present system admits the Duke's son if he is fit, but excludes the cook's son whether he is fit or not.
He went on to say:
It ought to admit both, but only if both are fit.
and added later:
Brains, character and manners are not the exclusive endowment of those whose parents can afford to spend £1,000 on their son's education.
Reverting to the hon. Gentleman's point about Lord Nelson, if he went before a selection committee today for entry as a cadet he would not stand an earthly chance of succeeding. It has been claimed in debates in this House that the early entry scheme and special entry scheme have produced a good type of officer. The question I want to pose is: a good type for what? [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen need not laugh; they should wait until they get the answer. It is not as funny as all that; it is very serious. Is it a good type of officer for an admiral? Ninety-five per cent, of them fail, and only 5 per cent, become admirals.
What is the test? The greater majority of naval officers are only required to reach the rank of lieut.-commander in their 30s, and to retire at the age of 45.

Why, then, all this "hooey" and nonsense about cadet entry? There is no question, and it is well for the controversy, which has been going on in "The Times" and in this House that this point was not developed because I could have sunk that as well, that there is a high standard and has never been any complaint.
Every published report of investigations into the cadet entry has always criticised the lower standard of the lower half of the entries, in particular, the "tail" that the system was carrying— too heavy a tail of indifferent officers which it ought not to have carried. The only real investigation carried out was by representatives of the United States Navy before 1914, when the common entry system had been going on for 10 years. They reported that the British Navy was getting good officers in spite of the entry scheme, and not because of it. That has continued until the present day. So there is no question at all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, of going back to the early entry.
We have now got the late entry, once and for all. There is no question that the Admiralty has to extend its field of selection and the range of schools. If there is to be a weak tail from the "posh" schools, why not a weak tail from all the schools? The Navy is a national service and every boy in the country has a right to an equal chance to serve in any of the national services as an officer, more particularly indeed, when the system is entirely free. Let us finish with this nonsense about restricted entry and selection because of people being "posh," and having an Oxford accent or a B.B.C. accent, which is worse still.
I will now pass to lower deck promotion. Whenever the Navy is short of officers it has gone everywhere else except to its own sources to get the increased number it requires. That has occurred right throughout the years. In the major expansions of 1895 and 1898 where did the Admiralty go? It went to the Merchant Navy and the Royal Naval Reserve; at that time the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve did not count as it does now.
Commissions were denied to warrant officers. A rating who joined the Royal Navy as such, and who had gone through


various grades as an able-seaman, leading-seaman, petty officer and warrant officer, had to find some way of getting out if he wanted a commission, joining the Merchant Navy, getting a commission there and returning to the Navy with that commission because there was no other way for him to do it. Of two contemporaries at school; one of whom joined the Merchant Navy and the other the Navy, the one who joined the Merchant Navy would get a commission in the Navy before his contemporary who had joined the Navy as a career. Just over 40 years ago the present Prime Minister, in introducing the Navy Estimates, in 1912, said:
These are the days when the Navy … should be opened more broadly to the nation as a whole. The question … is fraught with difficulties. We have thought them well over, and we are agreed … that there are no difficulties which … cannot be and ought not to be overcome."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1912; Vol. 35, c. 1570.]
The following year, in introducing the Navy Estimates, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I have noticed the tendency in some foreign newspapers to speak slightingly of this development "—
of lower-deck promotion—
as if it were a desperate expedient to which our shortage of officers compels us. I therefore wish to make it clear that we regard promotion from the lower deck, with possibilities of advancement"—
and this is the important point—
for merit to the highest ranks, as a permanent and essential feature in our naval system."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1913: Vol. 50, c. 1781.]
In other words, 40 years ago it was intended to be a permanent and essential system.
What has been the position? I was pleased to hear from the First Lord this afternoon that the numbers given commissions from the lower deck have been better than since 1945. But they should be even better still. The way to improve recruiting propaganda is to give the numbers who have entered and have got commissions, and the numbers of those who have attained the ranks of commander, captain and admiral. Then we shall attract people into the Navy as a career. If people get the idea that they are limited to the rank of chief petty officer or warrant officer, with limited resources, obviously they will not jump at it.
Then comes this question of selection committees and interviews. What are the stumbling blocks? The questions asked relate to one's parents, school, games and the newspapers one reads, and they also like to know what sort of accent an applicant has, but they do not ask questions about it; they hear that. Some of our greatest leaders in the various industries in this country in every walk of life would never have scored any points at all under those heads, and yet they have attained the highest ranks in their professions, in the academic, mechanical, engineering and other fields. Yet this is the "ruddy hooey" that they concentrate on.
I speak from knowledge on this subject, from my own experience as a candidate and as a training officer for commissioned officer candidates in H.M.S. "Hood," then the largest warship in the world. What happened when I went before my own selection board? [Laughter.] I knew that would draw laughter, but hon. Members should wait for the finale. They asked about my parents. Well, I could not bluff that one, even though I had not got my birth certificate with me. I could not say my father was the First Lord of the Admiralty if something else was on my parchment. Then comes the question of the schools. If the candidate was in the Navy's orphanage, that is also written down on his parchment, so he cannot do much bluffing there, except to say that perhaps he was at the top of the form instead of at the bottom.
When the candidate was asked what papers he read, if he said the "Daily Herald" he would be out. In my time the thing to avoid was to say that one read "The Times" in case someone said, "What did you think of the second leading article yesterday?" The answer— and there is no free advertisement here today—was to say the defunct "Morning Post."
If one was asked "Why the ' Morning Post'?" one said that it had a very good naval correspondent who gave a fair and objective point of view and stated the Admiralty point of view, so that one was on the right side of the fence. As for the accent—well, hell; if the candidate came from Yorkshire or Lancashire and


said "Ee, bah gum, an' all, what did I say when I come'd in?" he did not stand much chance.
When it comes to games, let me tell the House what "hooey" it was. The night before I went before my selection committee I sat down and wrote out all the possible questions and then faked all the possible answers. I was careful not to play my trump card in games too quickly. The candidate could say, "I have a go at football," but he should not lead with that one in case he does not play football. I used to have a go at cricket, but usually in the long field, catching the boundaries. I led to my trump card without getting stymied somewhere else, and I said that I played golf. It was unusual for a sailor to play golf. The chairman said "Golf? That's fine. Have you got your sticks with you?" I said "No, I left them at home." At any rate, that was a good subject, and both sides of the table could talk about golf.
They asked, "What courses do you play on?" I said that I played on the course where I lived and on another course five miles down the coast. Then they asked "How many clubs have you?" I told them a driver, a brassie, a niblick, a mashie and a putter. That was all right. I thought I was going to be asked what balls I used, to which I should have to reply "The three outside the pawnbroker's shop." We went on debating golf, and a fine time was had by all. I was totting up the points and thinking that I was getting well over this fence.
Then the President said "What was your handicap?" I thought to myself "My golly, that is the one question I did not work out last night." I remembered how old retired colonels would argue with one another whether they would give each other a stroke a hole or half a stroke a hole, and then I thought I had better say nine. They said, "That is not bad." But if that had been the wrong answer, I should have been out. The point, however, is that I have never played golf in my life. I have been a caddy. So I discussed golf as a caddy, and it was a caddy's golf that got me my commission. That shows the "hooey" of this "ruddy" games nonsense.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Commander Allan Noble): I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House about interviews. I should be grateful if he would give the other side of the picture. He will remember that the recent committee on naval entry reported that they thought that the interviews were very fair, and when the Press, including his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), attended these interviews recently, that was also their opinion.

Commander Pursey: Yes, but the hon and gallant Gentleman must not expect me to do his propaganda. He has got more time than I have. I am not the Parliamentary Secretary on the defence; I am on the attack. I am giving my own experiences as a training officer on the "Hood." I got as many candidates in three years as any other training officer because I made a special study of the subject.
Before a candidate went before the selection committee I would get hold of him and find out what this background was. I would also find out—because it would be common knowledge to the Navy—who was on the board, where the admiral served last, what were his peculiarities and the peculiarities of the members of the board, because it is more important to study those than the peculiarities of the candidates. Then 1 tried to marry the two together.
I got one very good candidate and 1 asked, "What was your last ship?" He said, "I was on the East Indies station." I said, "You are in clover. The president was chief of staff on the East Indies station. But watch your step. You will be asked what you think of the East Indies station. Don't say it is the worst in the world. Don't say it's fine. You can say you can get unusual experience seeing new things there, and that you can go up the mountains, and so on."
Another "guy" came from Ireland. He was the son of a schoolmaster. At that time the Sinn Fein troubles were on. "You will be asked about Sinn Fein," I said. There was an officer on the board who asked about that. So I briefed those "guys" and exercised them, and off they went, and in next to no time I was told they were back. I went to see them and I asked what had


happened. They said, "Exactly what you said would happen. We were asked the questions you said we would be, and we were all prepared, and the whole thing was ' Bob's your uncle.'"
That is the difference between candidates going before a board for lower deck commissions who have been briefed by an officer who knows the ropes, and others who do not know the ropes and get into traps. A "guy" from the next ship was asked, "What do you do in your spare time?" He said, "In my spare time I do gardening." All old sailors garden if they do not keep "pubs." One member of the board asked him, "Can you describe to us the development of the chrysalis to the caterpillar?" Which just shows that there are things to avoid. However, I do not want there to be any question of the Admiralty's offering me a job as adviser either to selection boards or to candidates going before selection boards. All this just shows how people can get over the hurdles if they know the ropes, while others who do not take a fall.
When I started to talk about my selection board there was laughter, but I did so to show how one could get through. However, it was not a question of the Navy getting a "King's Hard Bargain," because three of my contemporaries from the same orphanage became admirals. The point now is that if any of us went before a selection board for lower deck commissions today we should not stand an earthly, because the Navy has got too "posh" and will take no risks. It took a risk with me, and it was not a bad one.
I come now to warrant rank. During the period of the Labour Government the idea was to give them some improved conditions and prospects, but the conditions have not worked out as was thought, and they are worse off than before. In the old days warrant ranks had selected cabins individually, as storekeeping officers. Now they are sharing cabins. They used to have their own mess; now they are in a general mess with other officers, although I do not criticise that. However, instead of being independent, on their own, with good prospects of promotion, they find that their conditions have deteriorated, and I suggest that the Admiralty must go into the question of

the employment and the chances of promotion of the warrant ranks so that their Lordships can use these for their official propaganda.
My last point is that which the Navy Estimates gives me a chance once a year to raise, and that is the constituency interest of East Hull, and an interest of all Hull. Hull is the third port in the country, and I ask that it should be allocated more ship repair work. I have done this in previous years, so far with no result. After the First World War the only building yard in Hull was closed, so the port is largely, if not entirely, dependent in the big yards for ship repairs.
The Admiralty is doing certain things for commercial ports. Reserve Fleet ships are being berthed in commercial docks on the north-east coast and in South Wales. In Hull, admittedly, there is no place for berthing them. However, one hears of the First Lord's visiting other ports and other localities. Why not Hull, the third port of the country? The Home Secretary was supposed to come up to my constituency recently and open a factory. For reasons I need not discuss here, he did not come. [Laughter.] There was no dirty work about it. Instead, his Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) came in his place. I hoped that he would have been here to enjoy this.
Admittedly he provided some weight and bonhomie and a good speech, after a good lunch, and, as an ex-naval officer, he was able to make a valuable contribution, but he was representing the Home Secretary, and the main interest of the Home Office in East Hull is the Borstal Institution, which it cannot control. That is what we want the Home Office to deal with.
Hull demands that the First Lord, or at least the Civil Lord, should visit the port to see the conditions and possibilities of ship repairing, and to consider the question of the unemployment there, and map out a programme of work for Hull for a year ahead. At present, all we are getting is a motor minesweeper for which we are grateful, but that is only chicken feed, only a pinch of salt in the ocean.
There is a considerable amount of other Admiralty work going to other private


yards. What is wanted is a visit by one of their Lordships to conduct an investigation on the spot, and then, having conducted an investigation on the spot, to ask me what the trouble is, because he will not get the story otherwise. I am the "guy" that has got the story. There is no question that in the next 12 months the Government must do something about unemployment in Hull, otherwise, I can promise them, the "balloon will go up."
It is not only of importance from the naval point of view, but also from the point of view of the Merchant Navy. Here is the country's third port. There are London, Liverpool, Hull; no other fancy towns with their ports. It is essential that the talent, the skill and the workmanship of the yards in Hull should be fully employed for naval work and for mercantile marine work to cure the canker of unemployment there. Hull is an industrial island in an agricultural area, and the workers there cannot be used anywhere else near at hand. Their talents should be fully developed and employed in that town and port, instead of their having to draw unemployment benefit.
I warn the First Lord that there will be trouble in Hull unless we get more Admiralty ship repair orders, a visit from one of their Lordships and more consideration for Hull, the third port of the country.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, convinced of the unquestioned importance of the shipbuilding industry in peace and of its vital role in war, urges Her Majesty's Government to promote the greatest measure of stability in all matters affecting the industry, and recognises that its well-being depends upon a flourishing Merchant Navy enjoying the freest possible conditions of international trade.
I am afraid I shall not be able to make half such an amusing speech as has the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey). Indeed, I am going to make a rather serious speech about a serious subject.

Commander Pursey: Was not mine serious about serious subjects?

Mr. Nicholson: I ask the House to turn from the affairs of the Royal Navy itself to those of the fourth line of defence, by which I mean the shipbuilding and shipping industries. Each is a great subject. Mr. Gladstone used to say, "A great subject should be treated copiously." I am not Mr. Gladstone, and I can assure the House that I shall speak as briefly as the subject permits. The pictures which I shall paint will be done with broad strokes, and much that is essential will have to be left out, but in advance I ask the forgiveness of the House if I speak at greater length than I usually do. Nobody detests long speeches more than I do. I shall begin by talking of shipbuilding and go on to some of the problems affecting the industry's customer, namely, the shipping industry.
Before I do so I want to say, more or less in parenthesis, that I shall not deal with the wage structure or with alleged restrictive practices. A court of inquiry has just been considering those questions so that they are, as it were, still sub judice. I recommend hon. Members to read the Report of that court, which is contained in Cmd. 9085. I am glad that I am not dealing with those subjects because I do not want this debate to be contentious or partisan. I shall not weary the House by discussing at any length the great importance of merchant shipbuilding in its relation to our economic structure or its vital role in time of war. The Amendment calls it "unquestioned," and that needs very little substantiation.
But I must say that its economic significance is immense. At the end of 1953, the estimated value of orders on hand and of vessels under construction was £580 million, of which £170 million was for export to foreign countries. So far as employment is concerned, on shipbuilding and repair work, more than 125,000 men are employed, of whom 106,000 are engaged on Merchant Navy work and 19,000 on naval work. And, of course, a very large number of men which it is impossible to determine are engaged on the manufacture of components, because it must be remembered that shipbuilding is an assembly industry. To say anything about its r61e in war is to indulge in platitudes, but I must say one thing.
During the war, 6.6 million tons of dry cargo ships were sunk and four million tons were replaced. Half our tankers were sunk and all but 300,000 tons were replaced. British yards were responsible for nearly all these replacements, and that on top of an immense volume of new construction for the Navy which, of course, was given first priority during the war.
This Amendment, however, was not put down for the purpose of stressing the obvious. It was put down because during the past six or eight months the industry has undergone a complete change of climate. A year ago the barometer was set fair. Today the future is full of doubts and uncertainties. This sudden change of climate has given rise both to exaggerated pessimism and to complacent optimism. Both inside and outside this House alarmist speeches have been made. So far as complacency is concerned, I am afraid that I cannot acquit Government speakers of it; I need only refer to the speech made by the Paymaster-General in the other place on 9th December.
I do not think that either method of approach is very helpful. What we need is a calm, untendentious, factual assessment of the situation. This debate will have justified itself if it helps the House and the country to take a balanced view. The more critical the situation, the more need there is for a right perspective. I must inflict a few figures on the House in order to try to attain this perspective.
Our share of the world output total is falling. In 1948 it was 48 per cent., while in 1953 it was 25 per cent. Over the last few years output has, on the average, remained pretty steady at about 1¼ million tons a year. Since the war, immense sums have been spent on modernisation and on the re-equipment of yards and today, if all shortages were overcome—and, of course, in talking of shortages in the shipbuilding industry one primarily means steel—an output of 1½ million to l¾ million tons a year could be achieved. Berths, labour, skill and equipment are all available.
I now turn to the order book. At the end of 1953 the merchant order book stood at 5½ million tons. I have already said that output is 1¼ million tons a year at the present time. On the face of it, therefore, it looks as if the industry is

on a pretty good wicket for the next four years, but I ask the House to beware of generalisations. The outlook is not nearly so bright as it appears.
Eighty per cent, of the total output is due to 22 firms, about one-third of the principal shipyards of the country. These firms may expect to maintain their present level of activity up to the end of 1956 or well into 1957. But the smaller firms are far less heavily booked. Some of them have sufficient work to carry them to the end of 1955, but, in some cases, not beyond the end of this year.
Secondly, 57 per cent, of the output is represented by tankers, and tankers are not wholly reliable as an early source of further orders. The important thing for us in this country is to maintain our dry cargo fleet. Thirdly—and this is most grave—the order book, far from expanding, is contracting. In 1953—and I ask hon. Members to bear the annual figure of 1¼ million tons in mind—only 520,000 tons were ordered and 250,000 were cancelled. Twenty-eight firms booked no orders at all. We are well into the third month of this year, and, so far, there have been virtually no new orders. There have been some cancellations, and a good many more are believed to be pending. Those are the plain facts about the output and the prospects.

Mr. Edward Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman include fishing vessels in his figures?

Mr. Nicholson: I am including everything.

Mr. Edward Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a contract to the value of £6 million for trawlers—some of considerable size—was negotiated with the Russians?

Mr. Nicholson: It is not yet a firm order. I should be obliged if hon. Members would not interrupt me because I do not wish to detain the House longer than necessary. I have a herculean task in trying to paint a picture of these tremendous industries in half an hour.
I was about to ask what comments could fairly be made. The first is that the industry has always suffered from fluctuations. It suffers from such unpredictable fluctuating factors as the late war and the Korean crisis. The industry depends in the main on building for the British Merchant Navy, and if—and it is


a big "if "—shipowners can afford to pay for new ship orders must sooner or later be coming in again.
We must remember, however, that the yards cannot be idle for a long period and then suddenly burst into full activity. It is important that both the industry and the Government should read the signs of the times and should realise that 14 years of a sellers' market is a thing of the past. We must resolve that the industry shall be fit and able to take full advantage of any upward trend in orders when it comes, in a highly competitive world.
I must say a word about foreign competition. There has always been foreign competition and there always will be. The cessation of orders is not peculiar to this country alone. Foreign order books are shrinking too. It is easy to exaggerate the menace of foreign competition, particularly when foreign Governments grant subsidies and other forms of artificial assistance. A considerable number of countries today are granting subsidies and other forms of artificial assistance. I need only cite France, Germany and Italy as the chief offenders, more or less in that order.
There is no question that, provided our shipbuilding industry is healthy and our national economy is sound, foreign competition can be met successfully. None the less, it would be folly to deny that at the moment foreign competition is greatly intensified. The picture which I am trying to draw is one of a great industry in a state of doubt and uncertainty. There is no need for panic, but neither is there room for complacency. I hope there will be none of either tonight.
As to what the industry asks of the Government, the Amendment
… urges Her Majesty's Government to promote the greatest measure of stability in all matters affecting the industry …
The key word is "stability." How is it to be achieved? The industry does not ask for special treatment, such as subsidies or artificial aid. Of course, it welcomes Admiralty orders, and hopes that they will be spread wisely, but it does not come to the Admiralty cap in hand. It not only seeks no help from subsidies and artificial aids but believes that they would be disastrous in the long run.
What it wants is some certainty that delivery dates will not be held up for lack of supplies, especially steel. The steel position has vastly improved over the last year or two, but shortage is still a restricting factor. I hope that the Civil Lord will not tell us that all is well with steel supplies, for he will not be justified in saying that. The industry asks for a reasonable stability in all factors affecting costs and, consequently, prices. In other words, the greatest service which the Government can render the industry is to govern wisely and well.
Unless the £ retains its purchasing power, rises both in wages and cost of materials will price the industry out of existence, and unless there is peace in industry as a whole this industry will come to a stop. Those are statements which affect all industry and are not peculiar to shipbuilding. The moral I wish to draw is that the red light which is now shown by shipbuilding will be shown by every other industry if the Government fail in their duty. All that is peculiar to shipbuilding is that it will be one of the earliest casualties, and one of the most damaged.

Mr. Jack Jones: Does the hon. Member not agree that the Government's recent decision to increase the profit on steel by selling it back to private enterprise and giving a guarantee of 7½ per cent, will increase rather than decrease the problems of the shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Nicholson: In the long run increased production will bring the industry easier and better supplies of steel. This debate will range widely enough, but a discussion of the nationalisation or denationalisation of steel would be ruled out of order. The industry believes that it will be helped by the action of the Government. I do not speak for the industry, but I have asked its views on this question, and it is in favour of the action which the Government have taken. That is all I can say in answer to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones).
The second part of the Amendment asks the House to recognise that the well-being of the shipbuilding industry
… depends upon a flourishing Merchant Navy …


I make no apology for those words. We cannot discuss the future of a factory without discussing the purchasing power of its customers, and it is impossible to consider the future of this industry without considering the position of shipping, in its turn. I want to give the House a broad and, I hope, sound, but to some extent superficial picture of the prospect facing British shipping in respect of its ability to order and pay for new ships and so keep our shipyards busy and prosperous.
The picture which I shall paint is extremely sombre. The plain truth is that British shipping is suffering from a wasting disease which, unless checked, as bound to prove fatal. The name of that disease is "the incidence of taxation." Unless radical changes are quickly made, within 15 or 20 years the British Merchant Navy, as a source of wealth in peace and our most vital lifeline in time of war, will virtually have passed out of existence. One incidental consequence will be that there will be no shipbuilding, and another will be a serious gap in our balance of payments.
It is not a pretty picture or prospect, but if it contains any substantial element of truth it is high time that the facts were displayed brutally and baldly to the public gaze. I hope that this debate will be the beginning of such a display of the plain, unpalatable facts, and I should like to think that by what I have said I have given the House a shock, for I certainly intended to do so.
I must now justify what I have said. Our sea-going merchant fleet, which includes only those ships which are seagoing and of over 500 tons, totals nearly 17 million gross tons. That is roughly the same figure as in 1939. It is one-fifth of the world's total. Fifty years ago the British Mercantile Marine comprised one half of the world's total. But it is no use bewailing the passing of a golden age that will never return.
Merchant fleets today are partly dry cargo and partly tanker. Their problems are rather different, and to be comprehensive I should deal with both, but for the sake of brevity I shall deal only with the dry cargo problems. The House must not forget, however, that the story of tankers is analogous. We have a dry cargo fleet of 10.9 million tons. The

average useful life of a dry cargo ship is between 20 and 25 years. I should say that it was nearer 20 than 25. It is accepted that 20 years is the maximum useful economic life of war-built ships. I ask the House to cast its mind forward to the year 1965, which will be the critical time for our Mercantile Marine. By then, only 3¾ million tons of our present dry cargo fleet will still be in service, and even that figure is dependent on no ships under 20 years' old being sold abroad.
If we take a more optimistic view— which is thought to be an unrealistic one —and assume that half the war-built ships will still be in service then, the figure in 1965 will be 5½ million tons. But if we make the reasonable and generally accepted assumptions as to the life of our present fleet, the increase of world trade and the demand for carrying power —and it is generally held that material increases and various other factors will cause a considerable increase in the demand for world carrying power in the next 15 years—it is clear that our dry cargo fleet must be replaced at the rate of at least 900,000 tons a year.
I do not ask the House to accept these figures as being cast-iron accurate, but I ask it to accept that over the next decade or so we must build dry cargo ships to the extent of one million tons a year if we are to retain our present share of the world's carrying trade. If this were a purely shipping debate I should go on talking about tankers, freight rates, the transfer of tonnage to foreign flags—such as Liberia and Panama—flag discrimination, and so on. But I am primarily concerned with shipbuilding, and I hope I have made the point that the present rate of building, on the average over the years, must be at least maintained if our Merchant Navy is to continue to play its proper part in our economy in peace, let alone its vital rôle in war, and if its present valuable contribution to our present balance of payments is to continue.
It all hangs on the question whether the shipbuilders can afford the money, or have the money, to replace their fleets to the extent required. I state categorically that there is not the remotest hope that they will be able to do so unless the present incidence of taxation is changed. I ask the House to look at the facts.


Obviously, we can assume that the shipowners can pay for the ships already ordered, or they would not have ordered them. It is reasonable to suppose that collectively they have considerable reserves—how big is known only to themselves and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But unless these reserves can in their turn be replaced when they are exhausted, their existence amounts only to a postponement of the day of reckoning. I do not think that they can be so replaced.
The problem has two aspects. The first springs from the fall in the value of money and the second is inherent in the present system of taxation. As to the first, I think hon. Members know how ships are depreciated for Income Tax purposes. They are depreciated at the original cost price. In other words, after an initial allowance of 20 per cent, has been written off, over every year 5 per cent, of the original cost price is written off and at the end of 16 years the shipowner should have enough in reserve to build a new ship to replace the old ship, provided that he can buy a replacement at the same price. But today it costs three times as much, and in many cases four times as much, to build a ship as it cost before the war.
The difference has to be made up out of profits of which over 50 per cent, is paid in taxation. Even if costs do not rise any higher, the replacement of our present merchant fleet is bound to throw a titanic burden upon the industry. For, however large the reserves are, I find it difficult, indeed impossible, to believe that they amount to three times the cost price of our present Mercantile Marine—-and that is the minimum figure which will be needed merely to replace, without any question of expansion. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the present accumulated reserves cannot shoulder that gigantic burden.
The second, and in the long run more serious, aspect is that present taxation makes it practically impossible for the industry to keep its capital equipment— namely, its ships—up to what is demanded in the way of numbers and quality in a highly competitive world. I will give the House an example of a typical shipping company owning tramps. These figures have been published.
In 1913 it operated 14 ships. The gross profit was £166,000. Taxation took £8,000–5 per cent.—and enough was left to build three new ships, which were in fact built. This gives some indication of the extraordinary way in which the value of money has changed. In 1952, which was the best shipping year which has ever been known, the company operated 19 ships. The gross profit was no less than £l¾ million, of which taxation took £900,000–51 per cent. Anybody would think that the balance was enough to keep the fleet going very satisfactorily. As a matter of fact, enough was left only to build 1½ new ships.
The truth is that the life blood of the industry—and by "life blood" I mean hard, unromantic cash—is being drained away to such an extent that unless the Chancellor changes his tune—

Mr. Speaker: I have allowed the hon. Member to make a reference to taxation but what he is now asking would involve legislation, and that is out of order on Supply. We cannot discuss taxation and legislation on Supply.

Mr. Nicholson: I was relying on the words of the Amendment, which asks the House to recognise that the well-being of the shipbuilding industry "depends upon a flourishing Merchant Navy." It is common sense to say that there cannot be a shipbuilding industry unless the Mercantile Marine and shipowners can pay for new ships, and I am, first, pointing out the difficulties facing the shipping industry and, second, asking the Civil Lord, who has responsibility for the shipbuilding industry, to place certain crude economic facts before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have almost arrived at the end, and if I may be allowed two or three minutes' grace to complete my argument I should be most grateful. Unless there are changes in certain directions, then in a comparatively few years the Merchant Navy will dwindle away.
The next words on my notes are, "It would be out of place in this debate to say more than a few words on possible remedies."

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member ought to stick to his notes in that connection.

Mr. Nicholson: I shall.
I have three sentences to say in dealing with this subject. The first is that concessions relating to initial allowances and percentages of depreciation are not to be despised, but they do not touch the root of the problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] There seem to be many Speakers in the House. My second sentence is that the only possible solution lies in the direction of the relief of taxation—

Mr. Speaker: I did not know that was in the hon. Member's notes. What he read out was that it would be out of order to pursue this subject, and I think it is out of order. I must ask the House to remember that on Supply we cannot discuss taxation or legislation, and that is what the hon. Member is doing. He was allowed to make his point and he has made it, but he must now conform to the rules of order.

Mr. Nicholson: I will, indeed. I quite see the difficulty with which the House is faced in these matters.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I want to try and help the hon. Gentleman to be relevant, if I can. The last words of his Amendment deal with the Merchant Navy
enjoying the freest possible conditions of international trade.
He has not said one word about that or about East-West trade, and I offer that to him as a suggestion. Would he end his speech with it?

Mr. Nicholson: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for offering that suggestion. I intended to say nothing about that because I feared that Mr. Speaker's gaze would fall upon me before I reached that point. Indeed, it seems to have fallen upon me. I will complete my sentence by saying that there are certain matters affecting the economic strength of the shipping industry which, unless attended to, will be fatal to the shipbuilding industry. I believe that it is essential that reserves set on one side for shipbuilding should receive special treatment, whether by legislation or otherwise, by relief from taxation, either in whole or in part. I will leave it there.
The shipping industry is in a very precarious position. Neither the Government nor the public seem to realise it or

to face the facts. I have given figures to show that unless the shipping industry can afford to order new tonnage on a very considerable scale over the next 10 or 11 years, then by 1965 our dry cargo fleet will almost have vanished. My task tonight is to hoist a gale warning to the shipping industry. It is such a gale as has never blown before.

Commander Pursey: Is it blowing up or down?

Mr. Nicholson: It is a gale warning, whichever it is.

Commander Pursey: It ought to be up.

Mr. Nicholson: The hon. and gallant Member has had his gale, and we can leave the matter there. I am here to hoist a gale warning to the shipping industry, and I hope the House will insist that the captain of the ship, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will act wisely and rightly and, above all, that he will act in time

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is a subject of vital importance for all of us who are the slightest bit concerned about the survival of British merchant shipping. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) in much that he has said, and I hope to be able to tread delicately on the path on which he trod rather heavily towards the end of his speech.
I think that everyone will agree that over the last 12 months one of the major difficulties on the shipbuilding side has been the question of steel supplies and steel plates. There is no reason at all for any one to be complacent on this issue. I have no doubt that there has been a considerable improvement in the position in the last six to eight months, largely as a result of the setting up of an inter-Departmental committee on this matter, but, in spite of the improvement, there are still shortages and there still exists a wrong sequence of delivery and of sizes of plate.
It is this question of sequence of deliveries which has led to less efficient production in the yards than might otherwise be the case. I do not want to overstate this point by suggesting that there is inefficiency, but there is less efficiency than might otherwise be the case, and so


long as such a position obtains the British shipbuilding industry is under a disadvantage which should not be placed upon its back.
I understand quite well that the call for plates has increased enormously of late, but it is not sufficient merely to say that this position does exist, and do nothing about it. There is still the need for some attention by the steel mills themselves to the demands of the shipbuilding yards and repairing yards. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Government."]
It is not only a question for the Government. It is a question of companies meeting the demands of the shipbuilders themselves. It is up to the two sides— the shipbuilders on the one hand, and the steel producing industry, on the other— to try to work out a method of making greater progress on this issue.
The question of the delivery dates being offered by the shipbuilders is one which, to a certain extent, has frightened away further orders. We know a great deal of the history of this issue. The length of delivery dates is largely because of the size of the orders and not because of inefficient production in the yards themselves. I am not trying to belittle our shipbuilding industry, or to say that we are losing orders to foreign countries because of internal inefficiency. That is just not the case.
The truth is that the order books have built up to such an extent since the outbreak of the Korean war that long delivery dates are inevitable. We are now going through a period of readjustment, and the length of delivery dates will be declining.
We can easily compare the position with Germany. Germany has had special advantages as a result of the war and the developments arising out of post-war planning. The destruction of her yards and their complete rebuilding with new machinery, new equipment and new layout altogether has resulted in increased efficiency coming to the German yards as a by-product of the war. If we had been able to effect large-scale replanning and rebuilding of our yards in this country we would have been considerably more efficient and more competitive than the Germans ever could be.

Dr. H. Morgan: Why was it not done?

Mr. Williams: For the simple reason that we defended ourselves adequately during the war and did not have our naval yards razed to the ground. It is purely the fact that the German yards were razed to the ground, and as the result of their re-equipment after the war, their yards have a more efficient layout and a more efficient supply system from behind. It is as simple as that. There is undoubtedly a need for shorter dates for delivery coming out of our yards, but this is a question to be remedied in the coming months as the present order books can be fulfilled.
When we turn to the question of prices, there, again, it is alleged that other foreign countries can compete and can quote prices considerably lower than can the British market. I would say that our shipbuilders in this country can quote competitively where the conditions are fair and equal as between different yards and different countries.
Where, however there is subsidy and special assistance and tax concessions—I hope that I am not out of order in mentioning that—by foreign Governments, the foreign builders inevitably have heavy advantages. I think it is right that we should investigate the advantages given to foreign shipbuilders in an attempt to have these differences ironed out, so that we can compete on fair and level ground. We feel that when level ground does exist, British shipbuilding will take the orders every time because of quality, efficiency and speed of production when conditions are equal, and because of its high standard of technique and ability.
In relation to future prices, we are going through and perhaps we are coming towards the end of the difficulty which arises through wage increases. I do not intend to trespass on the highly dangerous ground of discussing wages, because I do not think it will add one useful word to this debate, especially when this question is due to be settled, as we all hope, by the two parties most actively concerned in it. I ask hon. Members to try to steer the debate through finance, because it is an issue which cannot do much to add to the debate.
Again, when we talk about our ability to compete in prices, we can compete against foreign builders provided that the conditions are equal and provided that there are not hidden subsidies, hidden


assistance and hidden help given to builders in foreign countries. On the shipbuilding side, although there has been a decline of orders and although there has been difficulty over supplies and cancellations, we are still in a position to compete and to get orders when conditions are equal.
When we turn to the question of the order book, we remember quite well the sort of position the order book had got into just before the outbreak of the Korean war. It may be that we shall return to the same sort of position now that obtained in those months immediately before that outbreak. Since the Korean war, and the position which obtained immediately after, there has been a simmering down and certain readjustments and a certain fear in the minds of people working in the industry that there is danger ahead. Now, I believe, is not the time for undue optimism or undue pessimism. I would quote a few words which the Paymaster General spoke in another place on 9th December when he referred to the re-equipment of our merchant fleet.
He said that the question of replacement was not immediate and that we must accept that replacement would not in any case fall due for the next five years, so that it was not an absolutely immediate problem. He was referring to the technical problem of older vessels. In the shipbuilding sense, I would submit to the House that something that affects the next five years is an immediate problem. It is not something that can be resolved in five years' time. This question of the replacement of our older vessels is an immediate problem, in spite of what has been said by the Paymaster-General. I myself feel that there is a complacency on the part of the Government on this issue of the replacement of the merchant fleet. I certainly hope that a greater sense of urgency will be shown by the Government in their reply to this debate. Unless this problem is faced, it will be too late to face it in five years' time.
Again, talking about the order book, we are worried about German competition. Let us look at the launchings from British yards in recent years. As my hon. Friend has said, in 1948 our percentage of the world output was 50 per cent.; in 1949, 40 per cent.; in 1950.

37 per cent.; 1951, 36 per cent.; 1952, 29 per cent., and in 1953, 25 per cent.— a progressively diminishing total through the years. Admittedly, part of this can be accounted for by increased German production, but it is an unfortunate trend over these immediate post-war years that, from the position of supplying 50 per cent, of the world's output, we are now supplying only 25 per cent. In spite of the increase of German production, these figures show quite clearly that our position relative to the world in general has declined. The conclusion to which I am drawn is that there is need for a greater sense of urgency in applying solutions to this problem.
When we refer to the percentage of the world's fleet that is registered under the British flag, we come down from a figure of something like 50 per cent, early in the century to a post-war 21 per cent., declining in 1953 to 19 per cent.—again, a decline in the influence and numbers of the British merchant fleet. Although the position is by no means good, it is not beyond rescue. I suggest trying to bring a sense of urgency to this issue in that a solution is needed quickly; and if we are to apply a solution quickly, it must be at the ship operating end of the line. That is why it is worth placing on record a few of the figures of the earning capacity of the shipping industry.
From 1948, our foreign earnings have gone up from £255 million to £436 million in 1952. Our dollar earnings from shipping have risen from £46 million in 1948 to £77 million in 1952. Shipping is an industry which employs 210,000 people. Although this may not be a particularly large figure when compared with certain other industries, the industry has a vital significance, and if allowed to run down it cannot be gathered together again in the twinkling of an eye. It is an industry which, while employing 210,000 people, was estimated in 1951 to have a gross output of £234 million. These figures demonstrate to a certain extent the importance in the economy of the nation, and in that much hackneyed part of our economy the dollar trade, the vital significance of the industry as a dollar earner.
But it is not with the shipbuilding industry alone that we are concerned; it is with the ancillary trades—the supplying industries, the catering and furniture industries, the manufacture of heating coils


and similar things for tankers, and so on. All these industries behind shipbuilding should gather our attention on a day like this. If there is to be a decline still further in British shipping, we must admit, at the same time, that there is to be a further decline in our position as a world power and as a world trading power. We can have our position as a first-class nation only if we are a first-class trading nation, also. Therefore, we come to consider what remedies we must have.
I do not want to trespass too far on to the subject of taxation, and I do not wish to be out of order, although that is the one subject which is at the root of this issue. It is all right posing the problem, but there can be no conclusion to this debate unless—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member says that he does not want to trespass. I hope he will observe his own ruling.

Mr. Williams: All I would say then, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is that there is a case for financial aid being given to this industry. There is no question of any preferential treatment, but there is a case for a new approach to the whole level of assessment for taxation throughout British industry.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not pursue that line.

Mr. Williams: If one cannot pursue that issue, which is of the most important aspects affecting the Amendment, I merely conclude this part of my speech by referring to the burden which the industry is bearing in helping other forms of expenditure in the nation. It is too high and too heavy a burden.
There is reference in the Amendment to
a flourishing Merchant Navy enjoying the freest possible conditions of international trade.
I do not want to go too much into detail in what, I know, is a contentious subject. I should merely like to quote from the Annual Report of the Chamber of Shipping for 1953–54. In a reference to the Suez Canal, the report says:
From the course of their daily business they "—
that is, the British shipping interests—
can see, more clearly than most perhaps, how much world trade will lose in freedom

unless agreement with Egypt provides not only paper safeguards but real ones for the effective continuance of the Canal as an international waterway at the service of international trade.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is opening up too wide a subject.

Mr. Williams: I was merely trying to follow the wording at the end of the Amendment, which refers to:
enjoying the freest possible conditions of international trade.
One of the greatest waterways used by British shipping is the Suez Canal. If it were to be closed, or if facilities in the area were withdrawn it would be a tragedy for British shipping.

Mr. Cyril Bence: All shipping.

Mr. Williams: Yes, indeed, but more particularly for the British, because we are particularly concerned with trade with the Far East and with the Persian Gulf. Those words which I have quoted are sage and sensible words on this issue. They are a request for real safeguards for British shipping in order that it may have not merely a paper agreement, but real safeguards, which will look after the best interests of British shipping in this vital waterway in the Middle East.
In view of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I do not intend to elaborate on that subject. I merely repeat that unless British shipping can have some definite guarantee about the freedom of the Canal, I should be very doubtful about the worth of any other agreements relating to that area. One of the first needs in the area is that the Canal should remain open for international shipping.
I conclude by urging the House, and, more particularly, the Admiralty, to consider this matter of the British shipbuilding and shipowning industry as a matter which needs urgent attention. There can be no delay. If there is delay, there may well be trouble ahead. If the Government are willing to take action on the sort of lines that my hon. Friend and I have tried to argue, there is a chance that we will prevent a further decline in British shipping. Unless action is taken quickly and unless the mood of complacency is thrown off, there is danger ahead. I hope and pray that the Government will take action while the time is ripe.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: If I intervene briefly in this debate—and I apologise to my hon. Friends and to hon. Members in other parts of the House— it is because I have been a long time here and have always been attracted by debates which refer to shipping and its kindred industry, shipbuilding. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) on having brought this important subject forward. He was somewhat embarrassed because he transgressed the rules of the House, but that is not unusual, not for the hon. Gentleman but for many other colleagues of ours in this assembly.
Nobody will deny the importance in the national economy of shipbuilding and shipping. But let us not indulge in too much pessimism about the position of those industries and services or, indeed, their future. I agree that a distress signal has been hoisted by shipowners in particular, and also by many shipbuilders, because of the difficulty of obtaining adequate and speedy supplies of raw materials. But ever since I can remember, in the debates we have had on shipping and shipbuilding in this House, now a matter of 30 years or so, hon. Members who have spoken from the other side of the House have always complained about the difficulties and dangers that beset those industries.
I remember that away back in 1910 the cost of a dry cargo ship—we did not build so many tankers in those days— or even the cost of a passenger liner, was infinitesimal compared with the enormous cost of those vessels nowadays. I can also recall the rates of pay for the men who sailed in those vessels. When I first came into contact with the seafarers of this country, on the Clyde in particular, the able seaman going to the River Plate received the enormous monthly wage of £3 15s. and the man in the stokehold was paid £4 a month. Nowadays, of course, wages are very much higher. They are four or five times as much, but even in those days shipowners complained how difficult it was to carry on.
The same applied to the inter-war years. I remember the debates we had in those years, and hon. Members are saying the same things now. The position is not disastrous. It is not fatal,

but, nevertheless, there is the danger that our shipping and shipbuilding industry may suffer a decline unless we are extremely careful. The thing we have to do is to consider how best we can promote our shipping services and, of course, render services to the shipbuilding industry in turn.
It is not to be done by means of taxation or, for that matter, by ensuring that the Suez Canal will be left open, but it can be done by promoting international trade. In the absence—surely this is obvious to everybody—of international trade, the shipping services of this country and, indeed, of the whole world are doomed. It is only by promoting international trade, by one country trading with another and by the removal of quotas and restrictions—in other words, condemning the policy frequently advocated by hon. Members opposite—that we can hope to render a service to our own shipping and shipbuilding industry.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) said, that the German shipbuilding and shipping industry has revived in the last few years. It is also true that the reason for it reviving is that the industry in Germany has been completely exempt from taxation. What has been the effect of it? A recent announcement appeared in the newspapers which, no doubt, hon. Members have seen, indicating that as a result of the almost complete exemption from taxation of shipping in Germany the shipowners had built up no reserves. Now the German Federal Government have decided that they must abandon exemption from taxation for the shipping industry in that country, and shipowners really do not know what to do.
In contrast, in this country the shipowners have built up very large reserves. Very few shipping companies have not got reserves which would enable them to replace a part of their fleets. Moreover, let it be freely admitted, whether hon. Members like it or not and whether the shipowners or even the ship builders like it or not, that in the last few years both the shipowners and the shipbuilders, taking them by and large, if I can use a nautical expression, have been doing exceedingly well and making large profits.
It is true that if one or two shipping or shipbuilding companies are selected, we


could point to difficulties that they have encountered. No doubt they are apprehensive about the future, but, generally speaking, they have not done badly at all, and it may be that if they had put more to reserves instead of liberating profits for dividend holders their position would be less precarious than it is today.
I bow to Mr. Deputy-Speaker's Ruling, of course, and I will not discuss taxation, but I should like to make this observation. When hon. Members suggest that shipbuilding should be exempt, or partially exempt, from taxation, we must recognise that as soon as this is done and there is any kind of taxation relief, then every industry in the country will make the same claim. It is quite impossible to single out the shipping and shipbuilding industry for that purpose. We must look elsewhere for a remedy.
One of the main reasons, if not the main, why I have intervened in this debate is that during the past week I have had conversations with people associated with the shipping officers' organisations, and I can tell hon. Members what they think about the position. They are alarmed, but they are less alarmed about foreign competition, strangely enough, than they are apprehensive about the effect on the shipping industry, and, through it, on the shipbuilding industry, of competition from air transport. Indeed, some shipowners have now embarked on air transport organisation because they realise that this air transport has come to stay not only for passenger traffic, but, in the long run, it may well be for certain kinds of freight traffic, although at no time would it be able to carry the heavy freight carried by the shipping industry.
What the Government ought to do is to examine the difficulties very closely. Apart altogether from the questions of taxation, financial relief, anything in the nature of subsidies or questions concerning foreign policy, such as the freeing of the Suez Canal from intervention by the Egyptians or any other Government, what they have to do is to see whether the shipowners and shipbuilders are devoting sufficient of their profits to reserves so that ships can be rebuilt.
I know I am on firm ground in saying to hon. Members that shipowners with initiative—and there are many enlightened shipowners, men of imagination and

enterprise—are capable of building up out of the reserves which they have carefully safeguarded in recent years, when the going was good, an adequate modern fleet providing the best conditions, apart from pay, for those who sail in their vessels. And what can be done by some shipowners can be done by all if they adopt the same methods.
I do not want to proceed farther along those lines, because many of these facts are well known to those who have examined the position. At present, the care of the shipping industry is in the hands of the Admiralty, but I say quite frankly that when it was first decided to transfer shipbuilding from the old Ministry of Shipping and, subsequently, from the Ministry of War Transport to the Admiralty, I was opposed to it. I recognise that there is a close connection between merchant shipbuilding and naval shipbuilding, particularly in relation to the supply of raw materials and that this must be properly co-ordinated, but I have not been happy about the change.
What is the history of all this? Before the last war we had in this country the Mercantile Marine Department of the Board of Trade. It was not altogether successful, at any rate in giving an impetus to our shipping industry, and it was decided by the Government of the day to create a Ministry of Shipping. That was supported by the Labour Party. During the war the Ministry of Shipping was amalgamated with the Ministry of War Transport.
That Ministry has gone and shipping is now the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, but I sometimes feel that, so far as the Ministry of Transport is concerned, shipping is the Cinderella of that Department which pays less attention to shipping than to road or rail transport or to the reconstruction or reorganisation of our road system. While I make no complaint about what the Admiralty have done for shipbuilding, particularly during the war and in the post-war years, I believe that the time has come when the matter might be reconsidered.
If it has, I want to make a suggestion which has nothing to do with legislation, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because it can be done by administrative action. I suggest that if we do not revert to the Ministry of Shipping—and there may be strong


arguments against appointing another Minister; because we may have too many already, though I do not single out anybody in particular—at any rate the Ministry of Transport should have a Parliamentary Secretary who devotes all his time to the care of our shipping industry.
While we ought not to be unduly apprehensive about shipping and shipbuilding, the position should be as carefully watched by the Government as are the industrial interests of the country. There must be no question of neglect, because we cannot afford that. On the other hand, let us not be too much alarmed by foreign competition. For many reasons I doubt whether the Germans will ever be able to compete with this country in shipping and shipbuilding services because of the high quality of our shipbuilding and the excellent condition of a great deal of our Mercantile Marine.
Let me give an example. Hon. Members will recall that there was a time before the war when we were alarmed at the competition coming from the United States, which had built a vast number of ships. But the United States was never a successful mercantile marine country, despite its large number of vessels. We overcame that difficulty and, later, we overcame competition from Japan to a large extent.
I agree that competition is emerging again, that it may become a menace and that it must be watched, but I do not believe that we should be unduly alarmed about the position, though we have to watch it and see that there is no further neglect or deterioration. If we do that, and, at the same time, appoint somebody whose sole responsibility will be that of the care of our shipping and shipbuilding interests, we shall have done a very good job.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. G. P. Stevens: I find myself in complete agreement with right hon Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) in at least one thing he said, which was to the effect that the House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) in introducing this important subject into our discussion. Although I represent part of a Navy seaport, I make no excuse for intervening into a

Merchant Navy discussion because it is obviously true that in war-time the Royal Navy derives a large part of its strength from the peace-time Merchant Navy.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that 50 years ago this country owned about half the total world shipping. He went on to say that we could not expect to return to that position because those times are gone for good. That is true, but we have to ask ourselves two questions. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has asked himself the first one, which is the simple and fundamental question: Are we slipping any lower down that scale? If the answer to the first question is "Yes," the second question is: Is there anything we can do about it? So far as the first question is concerned, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) quoted some figures which I should have thought had a definite and clear meaning. They referred to the tonnage of merchant vessels built in recent years in the various countries. My hon. Friend did not go far with those figures, and I shall quote a few more.
First it is important to realise that for the world as a whole the tonnage of merchant vessels built has increased by nearly 40 per cent, in the last three years, from 3,557,000 tons in 1951 to 4,938,000 tons in 1953. So far as this country is concerned, the tonnage completed year by year has fallen every year since 1949, and in the last three years that fall has amounted to 6½ per cent, which compares with a world increase of 39 per cent.
When we look at the countries in which that increase has taken place, we find food for serious thought. In the last three years the German figures were 265,000 tons, 498,000 tons and 712,000 tons.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: From what?

Mr. Stevens: Starting from zero.

Mr. Fernyhough: Exactly.

Mr. Stevens: That point was dealt with earlier.
I admit that Germany had her yards razed. But let us look at a few more countries where that did not happen. Japan, which did not start from zero, has the following figures: 431,000, 513,000, 732,000 tons. The right hon. Gentleman had a little tilt against the United States


of America so far as its Merchant Navy is concerned, but the figures there for the last three years were 153,000, 397,000 and 600,000 tons. The same trend is true of Holland.
In all these countries there has been an upward trend in recent years. The percentage of our share of world tonnage, on the contrary, has shown a steady decline and now stands at 20 per cent. There is no doubt whatever that we are slipping away and that a distress signal is flying, visible for all of us to see. That being the case, can we do anything about it? As some hon. Members have learned today, this is not the appropriate occasion to suggest that more generous taxation terms for shipbuilding companies might be of considerable assistance.
I make a suggestion which I think will be within the rules of order. I think that there should be a good deal more cooperation between masters and men, there should be a good deal less talk in the shipbuilding industry, as in other industries, of the two sides of industry. There should be greater realisation that there is only one side in industry and that is the side that brings the bread and butter to every man whose livelihood depends on industry.
There should be more consultation and mutually agreeable solutions. I was very pleased to notice that spirit in the wind and to see the result of the Court of Inquiry into the engineering industry, which recommended some such body as I have in mind, a body which would have constantly under review not only wages and matters of that kind but other related matters, including questions of dividends and their relationship to profits and wages.
It is obviously true that most Royal Navy ships are built in private yards. That gives us in the Royal dockyard towns some cause for anxiety about the continuity of employment in future. I wonder whether it would not be possible to build a larger proportion of Royal Navy tonnage in the Royal yards, not only from the point of view of continuity of employment but also because apprentices and other young workers, when occupied solely on repair and conversion, miss the vital experience that can only be obtained in new construction. If more new constructions could be allocated to the Royal

yards that would be of enormous importance and advantage as a contribution to the experience of these young people. If that cannot be done I wonder whether it would be possible to arrange some kind of scheme whereby these young men could spend periods of training of three months or so in a private yard in the Clyde, or wherever it might be. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham has done a good service to the House by putting his Amendment on the Order Paper, and I look forward with the greatest interest to the Minister's reply.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: We have listened with tremendous interest to the speeches of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) and the hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens). They should be congratulated on bringing to the notice of the House the condition of the shipbuilding industry. But I cannot understand their line of reasoning. They argue, and rightly, that this country requires a flourishing shipping industry and high quality ships at the lowest possible cost so that freightages can be obtained at the lowest price and trade obtained to bring about the salvation of the country's economy.
The price of steel enters into shipbuilding. Not long ago the Government did certain things. I know companies in this country that are primarily ship's plate producers. For two and a half years the price of ships' plates have carried a profit in interest of £3 10s. for every £100 worth sold. Ship's plates cost approximately £20 per ton, but the hon. Members who have been speaking tonight not long ago went into the Lobby to make certain that a further 4 per cent, interest at least should be put on the price of steel. They argued then that it would be a good thing if the production plant to which I have referred—and others like it—was returned to private enterprise so that remote investors could make more money. I do not know how they can argue as they do today, for a subsidy by means of a special form of taxation when one remembers the tricks that they were up to when they deliberately went into the Lobby to increase the profits on steel.
We on this side of the House argue that shipping, engineering and all things


ancillary to our world-wide trade are a matter of national importance and should be looked at within the framework of the national economy. We argue that shipbuilding should be a national responsibility—not that it should be nationalised but that there should be priorities and a sufficient amount of plant and material earmarked to safeguard that industry. History proves that the present Government have done exactly the opposite. I do not blame the hon. Member for Sunderland, South so much because he was not in the House at the time, though I know what Lobby he would have entered if he had been here. But the hon. Member for Farnham cannot deny the fact that hon. Members opposite walked deliberately into the Lobby to improve the position of their friends in the steel industry. The hon. Member for Farnham said at that time that I forgot that immediately on denationalisation there would be an upsurge of efficiency and the price of steel could come down. If that could be done overnight then hon. Members opposite are guilty of not having done what should have been done.

Mr. Nicholson: I never said that it would be done overnight. It is a question whether the shipbuilding industry thinks that it will do better under the present arrangements than under nationalisation. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that the question is whether the consumer is satisfied or not, and the categorical answer is that the shipbuilding industry welcomes the Government's measures.

Mr. Jones: Of course it does. It is behind the Government politically but not economically.

Mr. Nicholson: Surely that is a crazy argument. It is sheer nonsense to say that the shipbuilding industry, because it is allegedly behind the Government—whatever that may mean—for political reasons, is glad when steel is sold to it at less favourable terms. The industry wants the best steel at the lowest prices.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I remind both sides of the House that an argument on nationalisation is not in order?

Mr. Jones: I agree, but one cannot get away from the fact that the hon. Member for Farnham and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South adduced to the House

arguments on the cost of producing ships, and ships are not made from egg shells. They are made from steel and the cost of producing the steel is of vital importance. And that brings into the argument the question of the amount of profit made per ton produced.
I have only brought that point into the discussion to show the hypocrisy on the part of some hon. Members opposite when they have gone into the Lobby to add another £4 10s. profit per £100 worth to the price of steel. Ship's plates were being sold at approximately £20 per ton and the amount of interest was £3 10s. per five tons, that is per £100. Hon. Members opposite went to the Lobby to increase that by £4 10s. That means that on five tons of ship's plates costing £100 there is an increase of £4 10s. in interest, which is 18s. per ton.

Mr. Nicholson: I take it that the hon. Member is saying that there is a 4½ per cent, dividend, but does he think that the whole of a dividend comes off every transaction in business? His arithmetic is quite right and if it is £4 10s. on 100 tons one gets £108, but the dividend is not paid by increasing pro rata the selling price of every article.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member should get the simple arithmetic firmly fixed in his mind. Ship's plates are sold at the approximate price of £20 a ton—

Mr. Burden: rose—

Mr. Jones: Wait a moment. One dog, one bone. The amount of State interest is £3 10s. per £100 worth, and the hon. Member went into the Lobby to increase that to an amount of not less than £7 10s. per £100 worth sold. That means an increase of 90s. per £100 worth sold, and that is 18s. per ton. It is no use going into the Lobby to vote that and then to come here moaning about the effect on the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Jones: No, indeed. I have given way three times in succession to hon. Members who do not have the habit of giving way. I want to put the point that people who make difficulties for themselves should not come back to the House and moan about those difficulties.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), not because I agree with his mathematics, but because he was perfectly correct in devoting his remarks to steel in a discussion on shipbuilding. The whole root of the production in shipbuilding is the speed at which one can get the steel plates through the production sheds. That does not necessarily depend only on the delivery of steel but, as I understand the position, the shipbuilding industry is at present well satisfied with what is happening about deliveries of steel and preparations for the future.
Before I go further perhaps I ought to declare an indirect interest in the matter as advising certain shipbuilding firms on legal matters.

Dr. Morgan: That is not an indirect but a very direct interest.

Mr. Page: In the course of the debate the word "complacency" has been mentioned on several occasions, and it has been thrown in the face of the Government. We know that the shipbuilding and shipowning interests are facing difficulties at present. Even though they have 5¼ million tons on their order books, which is something like four years' production, they point to the competition of German and Japanese trade and to the subsidising of those foreign industries. They point to the wages and restrictive practices related to labour, and so on.
When these two industries say that the Government are complacent it is perhaps a case of the pot calling the kettle black. There has been so much work for the shipbuilding industry since 1940 that there has been little need for them to think ahead. Perhaps one cannot blame the industry for not thinking ahead when hon. Members opposite held the sword of Damocles over the head of the industry, threatening to nationalise it at any moment if they had the opportunity.

Mr. Burden: Would my hon. Friend agree that the argument of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) was not true, because the price of steel has not increased one penny since denationalisation?

Mr. Page: That is true, but I did not want to rouse the hon. Member for

Rotherham into mathematics again and I wanted to proceed with my own argument. I think it is a little unjustified to call the Government complacent when the shipbuilding industry over the past years, when orders have been good, has perhaps been a little complacent itself. Now, since the peak of September, 1952, it has been caught napping in two respects—

Dr. Morgan: Under this Government.

Mr. Page: I am speaking of the industry.
I think the owners were fairly prepared for competition from air transport immediately after the war and were prepared to join in developing air transport. That was prevented by the wholesale nationalisation of air transport by the Socialist Government and it seems that the shipowners lost interest in that aspect of the matter. The Act of 1953 has given an opportunity to progress along those lines, but I do not know whether they are ready or have any plans ready.
I think that perhaps they should look to that question and not be frightened that air transport will take away their sea passenger transport. There should be some possibility of working the two systems in harmony. Personally, I do not know the answer, but I am sure the answer can be found by good will between the two concerns, air transport and sea transport, and, no doubt, by the assistance of the Government.
I believe that the shipbuilders have been caught napping over the sudden popularity of the very large tankers. Only recently has it been realised that the future lies with the 40,000-ton and 45,000-ton tanker. We have not the docks in this country in which to build tankers of this size and until recently no effort has been made to produce them.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an effort is being made to provide dock accommodation for just the type of vessel about which he is speaking?

Mr. Page: I am aware of it, and I am obliged to the hon. Member; that is just my point.
It was not until the peak in shipbuilding production had been reached in September, 1952, and a decline had started


that the shipbuilders seemed to realise that they were, if I may say so, in the wrong boat, and that they should be concentrating on the much larger tankers of 40,000 and 45,000 tons. It was only then that they thought about building large docks.
If I may be permitted another pun, they certainly missed the boat, because this was already being done in the German yard of Howaldt's Werke, at Hamburg, where they produced the "Tina Onassis" the largest tanker in the world. It was launched last July and took only three-and-a-half months for fitting out. So far as I am aware there are only three shipbuilding firms in this country concentrating on the construction of large docks capable of accommodating that type of vessel.
Mention has been made in the debate of the modernisation of yards and the explanation was given that Germany had progressed with her yards because they had been bombed during the war and so it was possible to have a new layout. Hon. Gentlemen opposite murmured something about the nationalisation of our yards, but that would not help because the old yards have not the space for modern development. They have not the space in which to construct yards for 40,000 and 45.000 ton vessels. There is not the space to put up the production sheds in which to carry out the modern method of prefabricated shipbuilding. We have to find new land in this country on which to construct these docks.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Germans have not a rearmament programme.

Mr. Page: That may well be a very good reason why they have been able to make such progress in shipbuilding. I think there may be some way in which the Government can assist in the building of docks large enough for these vessels, but I must not develop that argument or I shall be ruled out of order.

Mr. Fernyhough: It would be interesting.

Mr. Page: I wish to make one or two suggestions about ways in which the Government might help both the shipbuilding industry and shipowners. There is the rather wide aspect of trade with China, and its development would be of great assistance to shipowning interests in

this country. The question of the Suez. Canal has already been ventilated and there are some minor points which might be dealt with by the Government and afford assistance to the industry, such as relief from the restrictions on the transfer of ships on sale.
There is the Ship and Aircraft (Transfer Restriction) Act, 1939, which may be ended not by legislation but by Order in Council. I suggest that it is time that came to an end, because it is restricting the sale of ships from this country abroad. The proceeds of a sale have to be placed in a blocked sterling account in this country, which prevents the use of that money for development. It can also have the effect of forcing the shipowners to sell to the British Iron and Steel Corporation at controlled prices. I consider these controls are now unnecessary, as is the control which still exists on the voyage licensing of tankers carrying cargoes outside the Government programme. There are other minor considerations of that kind which might be dealt with by the Government and which would be of assistance to the industry.
From the point of view of the shipowning interests, the Government can best give assistance by ensuring that State air transport does not carry uneconomic loads which can more economically be carried by sea; from the point of view of the shipbuilding interests. I hope that some assistance can be given towards the construction of adequate docks.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Walter Monslow: I join my hon. Friends in expressing our deep sense of gratitude to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) for introducing a subject of vital importance to the House and the country. It is certainly one of the most vital features in our internal economy today.
I would, however, point out that many of our problems result from Governmental policy. There has been a policy of procrastination about future orders for British shipyards. I believe that the orders for 1954 will be considerably less than those for 1953, and they will certainly not bear favourable comparison with foreign shipyard construction. As many hon. Members have reminded the House, we are faced with keen competition from Germany and Japan. I had


occasion last week to speak to a number of prominent businessmen associated with the shipbuilding industry, and they emphasised the tremendous pace at which work is now going on in German shipyards. There is no relaxation of effort in Germany to capture the market either by price or, indeed, by delivery. That is an important feature.
I noted that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) suggested that Germany was in the strong position she occupies because she has no rearmament programme. That demonstrates convincingly that a country which can spend more on productive and social services and less on non-productive and destructive services is likely to have an improved economic position. There can be no doubt that the shipping authorities in this country are complaining vigorously about the dearth of orders and are expressing the fear that there may be great unemployment in our shipyards. If I now refer to my constituency, I do so because a measure of redundancy exists in the finishing trade there. I can only express the hope that what is happening at the finishing trade end will not ultimately affect the craftsmen who build the ships in our yards.
Many of our economists are talking about the possibility of an American recession. This has undoubtedly caused a worried flutter in the rest of the world. Just what will be the future for the economies of the world no one can accurately foretell. The fear of a slump is real in shipbuilding and engineering and other basic industries, but we ought not to be weeping Jeremiahs and adopt too pessimistic an outlook. I believe that it is possible, with strong Governmental action, to improve the situation and thus give a measure of stability and security to those who are engaged in the great shipbuilding and engineering projects of our time.
I charge the Government with being responsible to some degree for what has happened. Let us examine in particular what has happened in the last year. There has been the problem of granting licences for the building and export of dredgers to countries in the Soviet bloc. The Civil Lord cannot help but be aware that three dredgers are now being built in Dutch shipyards for the Soviet Union and Poland.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): I hesitate to interrupt, but I am not quite clear how the hon. Gentleman holds the Government responsible. The fact is that the Government received no application for licences, and if the order was not given to British yards and no application for a licence was received by the Admiralty I am not quite clear how he thinks the Government is responsible.

Mr. Monslow: I want to return to what I said earlier, that when application was made by the firms building dredgers in this country to the Board of Trade for licences they were distinctly informed that it was no use making such applications.

Mr. Digby: They had to apply to the Admiralty.

Mr. Monslow: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement last week that we should endeavour to open out East-West trade, and that a greater volume of trade would certainly ease the present international tension. It would be well if the Prime Minister were to direct his energies and those great characteristics of drive and courage of his into some of his own Government Departments.

Mr. Burden: Is it not a fact that, because the international situation has cooled down, hon. Gentlemen opposite— who when they were in Government had to impose the most stringent restrictions on exports' to Russia—-because under this Government there has been an easing of tension, are now asking the Government to increase sales to Russia? The Prime Minister himself has shown the way in his recent speech.

Mr. Monslow: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Korean war has finished, and I take the view that we should expand our trade with the East, even to the extent of exporting capital goods. I think the Prime Minister in his fine declaration had a greater sense of balance and a better understanding of what is needed in the present hour of trial than have some hon. Gentlemen opposite.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I at once will disclose a personal interest in shipbuilding. The whole future and prosperity of the town whose representation I share with the hon. Member


for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) depends on k. It is for that reason that I must continue to be disturbed at the complacency of the Admiralty. I am now really in very distinguished company. The Chamber of Shipping in their annual review, complained of the "smoke screen" put up by the Admiralty. Sir Donald Anderson in his last speech as President of the Chamber of Shipping, complained of the "dangerous complacency" at the Admiralty. Mr. Denholm in his presidential speech broad-coast "a gale warning," and I should like to quote one passage of that speech, because it very fairly puts the case. He said:
In the last few years we have tried to drive home to the public at large, and the Government in particular, our fears for the future, but it seems to me that we have not succeeded and that there is still a large measure of complacency, engendered, perhaps, by the balance sheets we have produced in the last few years, showing, we must admit, large gross profits.
That fairly puts the case, because both these industries have been profitable for the past decade or so, and for that reason are not in a strong position to call attention to what is a real problem facing the industry.

Mr. P. Williams: The hon. Gentleman did say "gross profits"?

Mr. Willey: Yes; the point is that both industries have been very profitable and not in a position to exercise a powerful lobby on the Government. Again, "The Times" recently said:
Yards not equipped to build tankers or liners will feel the pinch soon.
and, indeed, a few weeks ago the Civil Lord himself changed his mind a good deal. Only last summer he was talking about four years on the order books, but when we last debated this subject a few weeks ago he said that the larger yards ' alone had booked work well into 1956. No longer did he talk about four years and his reference was only to the larger yards.
But the fact is that two-thirds of the yards of Britain are classified as small yards, so that the situation is one that demands serious attention. The output figures by themselves would be quite misleading. As several hon. Members have conceded, what happened was that

the Korean war gave an artificial stimulus, and I would concede with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South that this is a situation corresponding to that obtaining in 1949 and 1950. In other words, we are now examining what are the long-term prospects of the shipbuilding industry.
There is a significant point to which I would call the attention of the House. In the Report of the British Iron and Steel Federation, reference is made to plate production, and it talks about the "temporary demand" and of how we shall soon be over the hump. This is the steel industry making an estimate of the future position of shipbuilding, which is disturbing in the sense that it demands analysis, examination and realistic appreciation.
The essential figures have already been given. In 1951 the new orders put on the books were over 4 million tons, whereas, last year, they were just over half a million tons, and against that we have to offset a quarter of a million tons by way of cancellations. We must realise that this year there has been very litle put on the order book and further cancellations. I am disturbed by the references made to foreign competition. This is not the result of foreign competition. It may be aggravated by foreign competition, but it does not result from that competition.
I welcome the Amendment because we cannot divorce the future of shipbuilding from shipping. The fundamental difficulty lies in the prospect for shipping. After all, the foreign yards are suffering the same difficulties as our own yards. We only have to look at the Japanese figures to realise their difficulties, and now the German yards are facing similar difficulties. The short explanation is that shipping is no longer sufficiently profitable to induce the placing of orders on the scale that they have been placed in the past few years.
We only have to appreciate that the freight rates, taking 1952 as 100, dropped on an average last year to 77, and in December they were as low as 71.5. In fact, since May they have fluctuated around the 74 mark. This is a very appreciable fall in the freight rates and it is bound to affect the shipbuilding position.
Another index is the number of British vessels tied up other than for repair. We have about a quarter of a million tons of idle shipping tied up. This figure is fluctuating, but it has tended to fluctuate round about the 200,000 ton mark. If shipping is tied up in this way, it is not likely that we will have orders placed in the yards. This is a reflection of world trade, and we have to safeguard our own essential industries against that background. We cannot complacently accept it as inevitable.
I have stressed that foreign competition is not the cause. The fall in the profitability of shipping is the cause, but we have got to realise that this has been aggravated by what has been happening in world shipbuilding as a whole. It is significant, as previous speakers have said, that our percentage of the world output has fallen at this time when the profitability of shipping has slumped. Last year we produced 26 per cent, of the world's shipbuilding, compared with 30 per cent, the year before and compared with from 34 per cent, to about 50 per cent, in the immediate pre-war years.
Let us look for a moment at the output of the main competing countries. Sweden, last year, turned out 485,000 tons. That is a third more than Sweden produced the previous year. It is the largest output in the history of shipbuilding in Sweden. In 1938, the output of the Swedish yards was 166,000 tons. Japan, last year, turned out 557,000 tons. That was less than the previous year's output, but the previous year's output was the highest in the history of Japanese shipbuilding and has to be compared with a tonnage in 1938 of 442,000 tons.
Somebody referred to Germany as not ever being in a position to compete with this country. The output of German yards last year was 818,000 tons. That is certainly comparable with our present output, and was 300,000 tons more than in the previous year. It was an all time record in the history of German shipbuilding. We have to compare it with the pre-war output of the German yards, whose output in 1938, when they were at maximum production, was 481,000 tons.

Mr. P. Williams: In all Germany.

Mr. Willey: Yes.
The United States last year produced rather more than 500,000 tons of shipping, which was a larger output than in the previous year and, of course, was larger than prewar. We have also to recognise the whole time the tremendous potential of the United States. In five years, between 1938 and 1943, the United States increased their output from 200,000 tons to the tremendous figure of 11½ million tons.
The point is that at the time when the profitability of shipping has slumped and drastically affected shipbuilding, there is a larger shipbuilding capacity available in the world.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman has quoted Sweden, Germany and the United States. Would he agree that in all these cases there is a far more modern method of shipbuilding adopted than in this country? Are those figures due to that more modern method?

Mr. Willey: I would say that these figures demonstrate the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I was going on to say that there is not only an enlarged capacity but also new capacity. I concede at once the point made by the hon. Gentleman. New capacity has great advantages in production over old capacity.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Why are we not modernising?

Mr. Willey: I am afraid that a lot of nonsense is talked about foreign competition. Too many people are trying to seek that as an avenue of escape.
There has been a lot of talk about the Hamburg yards working round the clock. If we worked round the clock it would add to the costs, and with our present steel supplies it would mean that men would work round the clock for four months in the year and be unemployed for the other eight months. I do not know why this comparison with Hamburg is made. We have to remember that Hamburg has 80,000 unemployed. If one has a background of unemployed then it is possible to work with an occasional third or second shift.
Our yards are in a competitive position largely because they have cheaper supplies compared with foreign yards, and the main difference between ourselves and the West German yards is


that our yards get their steel at £10 a ton cheaper than do the German yards, thanks to nationalisation. The reason why our yards are being prejudiced at present is because this differential is being narrowed the whole time for two reasons. The first is that denationalisation adds to the cost of steel in this country, and the second that the Schuman Plan is operating to reduce steel costs to our main competitors.
The fundamental problems of the shipbuilding industry are, as I have said, the fall in the profitability of shipping and the increase in the world capacity of the shipbuilding industry. This is aggravated by the fact that the increase of shipbuilding capacity today is governed by strategic and national considerations. That is why I mentioned the United States. We do not know what the United States may feel driven to do regarding its own shipbuilding capacity. It means as a consequence— and this has been touched upon by other hon. Members—that there is a large measure of Governmental aid and interference in the shipbuilding industry in most other countries.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point, but surely the one important factor is that the German yards are working round the clock and we are not. One appreciates the difficulties, but that means that people going to the German yards are getting quicker delivery. That is a vital factor.

Mr. Willey: The difficulty about that is that one cannot have long order books with immediate delivery. The yards without order books can, of course, give a better delivery date than can the yards with full order books. I do not agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) that shipbuilding should not have preferential treatment.

Mr. Nicholson: Since when have I been made a baronet?

Mr. Willey: I was merely anticipating developments.
In Italy, Japan, West Germany and in almost every other shipbuilding country the State has accepted a responsibility in one form or another for the industry.

We have to recognise that we have without question a claim to some preferential treatment for British shipbuilding, and, if necessary, for British shipping. The first thing is that the country must accept its responsibility.
To go back to Mr. Denholm's presidential address, he went on to say:
our defence expenditure is running at the rate of £4½ million a day. What is the use of this if we do not have the tonnage with which to maintain our vital communications.

Mr. Nicholson: Yes.

Mr. Willey: I am very glad that the hon. Member accepts that point of view. It logically follows that shipbuilding, and, if necessary, shipping demands preferential treatment from the Government.
This matter must be urgently considered. I have pleaded previously for a working party; the Trades Union Congress wants a development council, and the "Newcastle Journal," which devoted much of its energies to this problem, has-said that we should have a fact-finding inquiry. Such a body should include shipping interests, and should deal with, technical questions, such as the 45,000-tonner which can be loaded and unloaded in nine hours, and which is beyond the capacity of most British yards.
I am not satisfied that sufficient attention is being paid to research in shipbuilding. I remember raising the question of the experimental tank when we were considerably behind competing countries. There is also the question of replacement finance especially in relation to dry cargo tonnage. There is the anomaly of the excavation of a dry dock not having certain advantages which it ought to have. I shall not mention the advantages because I might transgress the rules of order.
There is the vital factor of space, which is emphasised by the comparison between ourselves and other countries. We have to have more space for the yards, and this is a very difficult problem, as we can see if we consider the Wear or the Clyde. The problem cannot be tackled by single yards. We have to look at the Wear as a whole to see how we can make the most of it and provide the proper space for straight run prefabrication.
We have also to promote co-operation and efficiency throughout the industry, I


regret that this industry has been disturbed by the recent wage dispute, which is a reflection upon the shipbuilders. It is difficult to call for the utmost cooperation in the face of these very long and protracted negotiations. The sooner the matter is dealt with and out of the way the better it will be. If it were out of the way there should then be discussions about the demarcation question and the problem of the structure of this industry. But, first, we have to resolve the wage claims.
We must examine two essential problems. First, there is the determination of the need and extent of Government aid and, as a consequence, Government interference. Secondly, there is the unavoidable problem of the redundant capacity which has to be maintained in the national interest and the interests of the men who are to be used in those yards when the emergency arises. In other words, we have to examine and re-examine the question of redundant capacity being maintained and alternative work being provided for highly-skilled workmen.
We talk about American efficiency, but our shipyard workers on the Wear out-competed the men in the Kaiser yards. Although they overtook us during the war, we regained the lead before the war was ended. These are men of great skill, and they are hard-working. This is true both of management and men. We have a resourceful management. It must be remembered that the Liberty ship was designed on the Wear. We have initiative both in management and men which cannot be allowed to go to waste again. This problem must be considered by the industry, by the shipping interests, and by the Government.
I want to conclude by making a plea for something further. It is time for international action. For example, I was very disturbed to learn that American naval officers are in Western Germany discussing with the Germans the placing of tanker contracts. I should like to know what discussions the Americans had with us about the placing of those contracts. It is a matter of Western defence. The problem of shipbuilding has to be tackled not only nationally, but internationally.
Against the background which 1 sketched tonight, I hope that there will be mot only national, constructive discussions

by all sides of the industry but that the Government will also endeavour to give a lead in promoting international discussion.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), I have a substantial constituency interest in this subject. I, too, should like to thank the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) for giving us the opportunity of discussing this subject tonight.
It is true that shipbuilding does not today play quite the same part in my constituency as that which it played before the war. Then, due to the deliberate concentration and decline of the shipbuilding industry, Jarrow became known as the town which was murdered. That can hardly happen again, because the shipbuilding industry today represents only between 20 per cent, and 25 per cent, of the total employment in the area. Nevertheless, that is a substantial percentage, and because it is substantial and because of the fear which the people of Jarrow have at present—the outcome of past bitter memories—I hope that the Government will do all they can to see that the highest level of employment is maintained in this industry.
I want to correct the Parliamentary history of one or two hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams). This Government have made it more difficult for the British shipbuilding industry to compete in international markets, because one of their first actions on coming into power was to compel the Steel Board to increase the price of steel. The board said that this was not necessary and that it was making enough profit to pay its way and to provide capital investment. Indeed, the Government compelled the Chairman to resign because he said he did not believe it was necessary to increase the price of steel. The subsequent balance sheet of the nationalised industry showed a £60 million to £70 million profit as a result of all this.
How much better it would have been if the Government had allowed the price of steel to remain unchanged, thus enabling British ships to be delivered at a much cheaper price. It was the policy of the Government which had a direct effect in undermining our ability to compete, and it ill becomes the Government


or any hon. Members opposite to talk about the dangers which the wage claims of the workers may have upon employment when they themselves, by actions of the kind which I have described, deliberately undermine our ability to compete. Obviously, one reason why the price of steel was increased, making it more costly to build ships, was to make the steel industry more profitable when it was handed back to private enterprise.
While I want everything possible to be done for the shipbuilding industry, I am always alarmed when any special privileges or preferences are given to an industry. I come from a mining locality, and I remember in the early twenties when the mining industry was given the special privilege of a subsidy. I know what happened to the subsidy—how it was frittered away and how, ultimately, the industry which was supposed to be saved by it was left in a condition worse than its condition before it received the subsidy.
When hon. Members talk about the high level of taxation today as being one of the deterrent factors and one of the problems which make it most difficult for this industry to compete, and as one which makes it more difficult for the shipowners to replace their fleets, never let them forget that the biggest contribution towards that high level of taxation which the people of this country today are bearing is of course, the arms burden. The very Estimates which we are considering now total £353 million, and I cannot think that anyone would believe that it would be right and proper that any section of industry should not, from its profits, make its contribution to that sacrifice and the amount that is required.
I should like to get from the Civil Lord tonight some decision with regard to our attitude to building ships for the eastern European countries and the Soviet Union. It may be true, of course, that no orders have ever been submitted and, therefore, no question of a decision by the Admiralty or the Government arises, but what is true, and what all those Governments know, is that there were two tankers built in this country which were paid for before they were delivered and which, when the time for delivery came, were not delivered.
I am not blaming the present Government for that because that happened

under our Government, and I protested as strongly against that when our Government was in power as I want to protest against the attitude which, I think, the present Government may probably take if any further orders come along. While it is true that we are not supposed to deliver strategic materials because the terms of the Battle Act prohibit it and we shall not get American aid if we do, it is also true that every other country which is affected by the Battle Act has just disregarded it.
Sweden built the two tankers that we failed to deliver. The French, last July, made a trade agreement with Russia under which they would build and deliver certain ships. The Danes likewise have continued, despite the Battle Act, to build and deliver shipping to the Soviet Union. I want to know if the businessmen who have been to Moscow recently have been able to obtain any orders, and whether those orders are to be permitted by the Government. I want to know whether the Government are going to be like Denmark who, when the Americans challenged their right to deliver, just turned round to the Americans and said, "This is our business and we can look: after it very effectively without any outside interference."
I am quite sure that substantial orders in that direction could be obtained. When British businessmen had been given the right to accept orders there has been no question of foreign competition being able to beat us. The Germans were competing for the contract for the 20 trawlers that are to be built at Lowestoft, and Britain was able to submit much the lowest tender and got: the contract. I think that in view of the reduced international tension and the need to maintain, so far as possible, full employment in the shipbuilding industry, the time has come when we should review the list of proscribed exports to the various countries.
No matter whether it be the shipbuilding, the metal, or any other industry we are considering, the only hope of any Government being able to provide the people with full employment is upon the basis of an expanding world trade. The possibilities of that substantial expansion in world trade now exists. It is for us to take this chance, and it is for the Government, who have the


opportunity, to grasp it with both hands and thus make certain that the days of depression, of which there are so many bitter memories in so many parts of the country, are never allowed to return.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I, too, thank the hon. Members for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) and Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) for raising this subject tonight, although I entirely disagree with the proposals of the hon. Member for Farnham as being suitable to save the shipbuilding industry, A good deal of propaganda is carried out by the Shipbuilding Conference to stimulate the idea that taxation relief is necessary to save the industry, but I do not believe that this is the remedy. Obviously, this sort of thing could be done over a wide field; every industry could demand the same kind of thing, but in the result the position would be the same as that from which we started.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South did not raise the question of prefabrication. The Liberty ship, as was rightly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), was designed on the Wear. The contract was given to Kaiser to produce the Liberty ship on the west coast of America, and it was produced with British and British-designed equipment.
The Liberty ship could not be produced in this country. If John Brown's, of Clydebank, had the area in which to work and could get at a reasonable price the land on which to build big covered shops for prefabrication, they could stand up to any competition in the world in quality and price. One of the greatest handicaps of British shipbuilding, as we see it on the Clyde, is the lack of space for the development of intensive prefabrication.
I am aware that these processes are being carried out in Hamburg and in the United States. Although they were British designed, they cannot be carried out here because our shipyards are closed in on the riverside, with expensive land and big buildings all around them. The capital cost is too great for our companies to move out to get the space for prefabrication.
Of course, work can be carried on for 24 hours of the day if there are great covered sheds where prefabrication can be done by men employed on three eight-hour shifts. I doubt very much, however, whether at Greenock or Clydebank one could get three shifts to work out on the stocks on the slipway in winter. In any case, John Brown's would not get me doing it on the night shift.

Mr. Jack Jones: My hon. Friend would be like John Brown's body.

Mr. Bence: If we are to compete with the processes now being operated on the west coast of the United States and at Hamburg, where the surrounding built-up area was smashed and the resulting vacant land was put at the disposal of the shipbuilders, obviously something has to be done to help the British shipbuilding industry to extend its area of land for prefabrication, which it certainly cannot do with all the expensive land surrounding it, from its existing resources.
I consider that the Admiralty has wasted an awful lot of money in building hulls that are outmoded. I should have thought it would have been much better if the Admiralty, in the interests of shipbuilding in this country, had enabled the shipbuilders to get land such as I have mentioned. For instance, Messrs. John Brown and Co. Ltd. have established in Clydebank away from the river, the building of land boilers. If John Brown's could establish a new industry and get the land for it, why cannot the Admiralty assist these companies to get land alongside their yards for prefabrication?
There is another development of which we have to take cognisance, and that is the process going on in St. Nazaire and in Newport, where they are converting docks into dry docks and building prefabricated ships. I think there is only one such dock in Newport, but they have three in St. Nazaire.

Mr. Digby: They have built a shallow dry dock for the express purpose of undertaking construction by that method. There was no dock there, so far as I could see.

Mr. Bence: That was in St. Nazaire, and they have a dry dock for building ships and then floating them out. They have big fabricating areas as well, thus


ensuring continuous use of capital equipment. This sort of thing would be difficult on the Clyde, because the river is so shallow, and it would be very expensive to cut deep into the land because the river silts up quickly.
One other point with which I want to deal is the question of world trade. Obviously, unless world trade is worked up to its maximum the shipbuilding industry, not only in this country but in every country in the world, must fall considerably. I think it is dishonest to keep quoting this percentage figure of British shipbuilding and. the British Merchant Navy and comparing it with the overall figure for the world. What we should consider is, are we achieving a reasonable production from our potential, our raw materials and our labour? What percentage it is of the world figure does not very much matter as long as all our resources are being used. If this Government and other Governments pursue a policy which will reduce trade then trade will fall all round. I do not see why we should worry if Germany and the United States are producing more, provided that our full capacity for production is used and our potential employed.
With other countries, with larger areas and greater sea coasts, becoming increasingly industrialised, they will produce more, so we have to see that world trade is kept moving at the same tempo. If this potential keeps going up, I do not see that there is any reason for us to be despondent. As soon as the present Government got into power business began to tighten up. There was a slackening off, for it was recalled that a prominent member of the Government when in opposition said that what we wanted in this country were more and bigger bankruptcies. When businessmen found this Government in power they began to be careful. One of the first things that the Government did was to put up the Bank rate. On a ship costing a couple of million pounds it meant that the cost increased tremendously.

Mr. P. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is talking about bankruptcy, but he must realise that one of the greatest bankruptcies that was avoided was national bankruptcy.

Mr. Bence: No, a nation does not go bankrupt.
I have heard some extraordinary statements tonight. For instance there was the statement from the hon. Member for Farnham that the reason why Germany was in such an advantageous position was that she was defeated in the war and could start afresh. Perhaps it would be excellent if Britain went bankrupt and paid Is. in the £, because she could start all over again with no National Debt. That would be very useful indeed. If the British Government went bankrupt and put in an official receiver and decided to pay 1s. in the £, the National Debt would be wiped out and we could start afresh.
It is only a couple of hundred years ago that the National Debt was a few million pounds, but my grandchildren will probably see it in figures as long as the space between my two hands. But nations do not go bankrupt. That is not a term which can be applied to a nation. A nation always gets out of it in some way or another, because the wealth of a nation is its human beings and their capacity to produce.
When I heard the hon. Member for Farnham talking about the golden age of half a century ago, I asked myslf, a golden age for whom? The shipbuilders? I ask the hon. Gentleman to go with me to Clydebank and ask the retired shipyard workers of 60 or 70 years ago if 50 years ago was a golden age for them.

Mr. Nicholson: Of course I was not meaning that. I was merely saying that if we could go back to the time when we owned half the world's shipping, it would be a repetition of the golden age.

Mr. Bence: Surely no one would suggest that Britain has an inherent and natural right to retain that percentage of world production, either in shipbuilding or motor cars or sewing machines. The rest of the world will go on producing, and it is better that all the world should produce as much as possible. Surely the more the world produces the richer humanity will become? Why should we be despondent because the world is producing more? It is only because hon. Gentlemen opposite measure the output of human labour by the profit it brings to those who control that labour that they are despondent.
I remember the rationalisation schemes of the late Stanley Baldwin before the


war. His argument was that we were poor because we were producing too much. He said that if we rationalised industry and cut down production we should all get richer. I stood up at the public meeting he was addressing and asked, "Then if we all produce nothing at all, we shall all be millionaires?" That was the logic of it, and I was nearly blue in the face about that argument.
I believe in the maximum production of all resources, but the trouble is that then profit cannot be made. Even today there is too much. I have been connected with an industry which has not produced to the maximum capacity because its output was at a figure which gave the maximum price for its product and the maximum profit was obtained at that figure of output. I do not say that is the case in the shipbuilding industry, because I have never worked in it, but in the industry which I have mentioned that was so. Our market research saw to that. That is the major difficulty in this country, and it is the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
I say that the shipbuilding industry of this country will only be saved if there is a world planned economy based on agreement between the nations to use the resources of every country to build up the trade of the world. We shall not do it by fostering the idea in Germany that we are working more cheaply or longer hours or by building up the idea here that they are doing the same because, by doing that, every industry in this country will be crippled, the trade of the world will be crippled and the lives of millions of men and women and their families will be crippled.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: It should not go out from this House that none of our British yards is making a proper effort to modernise and meet the challenge of the present time. When, very rightly, we have had this very valuable examination of this important problem it is only fair that we should know, also, that in some areas at least we have been able to make very real advances in shipbuilding modernisation. As I represent an area where many of these most outstanding changes have taken place, it is only right that I should say something about them.
On the Tyne it has been possible over these last years for two major shipbuilding firms to make considerable changes by way of modernisation. One of them has already carried out a vast reorganisation, including the prefabrication to which reference has been made several times in this debate. It is acknowledged that we have there a modern yard fully capable of meeting modern competition. In a neighbouring yard, probably one of the largest in the country, there is now being carried through an expensive modernisation scheme which the Minister examined when he was in Tyneside a short time ago. This scheme will enable the Swan Hunter yard to deal with the largest size of tankers that can be built and will enable the Tyne to compete in world markets.
All this raises the problem of space which several of my hon Friends have mentioned. In many cases there is not the space to carry out this work. One must not only have the largest slips, but one must also have the prefabrication shops so sited as to give easy access to those slips. In many cases that is not possible without almost the replanning of some towns. In one Navy yard it has been possible to carry out reorganisation and in another yard schemes are now well advanced which I am sure will succeed before long in producing the size of slipway and the prefabrication shops that we want.
But reorganisation of this kind is much more difficult to carry out when the slips are still working, as compared with the problem of our foreign competitors who are building from scratch. One must pay tribute to the firms that are involved in these very big reorganisation schemes and in the planning that is involved to ensure continuity of work in existing slips while the reorganisation of the rest of the yards is going on.
I quite appreciate the impossibility of carrying out schemes of this sort in many parts of the country without great changes in the planning and layout of streets. It is a problem which requires the active cooperation and help of the Government. I suggest that there is a very strong feeling that with regard to these life and death problems the Admiralty has not shown the drive and keenness that many parts of the country would have liked to have seen.
I do think it is pertinent at this point to refer to proposals put forward on many occasions in the House and in the Press by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and his suggestion that there should be a working party set up between the two sides of the industry, with the assistance of the Admiralty, to tackle some of the problems of organisation both of labour and capital in the yards so as to face the problems which undoubtedly will be coming upon us before long.
It is important that we should get the wage claim out of the way first but, once it is out of the way, it is highly important that the two sides of the industry should discuss these long-term problems. Unless they do so, I am afraid that we shall be in very real difficulty.
A further point which I have raised at Question time on several occasions is that, although it is true that steel plate is now much easier to obtain in the yards, there are certain types of plate which are still very difficult to obtain, in particular boiler-plate. The more I try to find out why boiler-plate delivery should be two and even three years from our own manufacturers the more difficult it seems to get an effective answer. So far as I understand, some of the larger types of boilerplate are only manufactured by one firm, that of Colville's.
For reasons which 1 do not pretend to understand they have not been willing to expand their production to meet the undoubted need for a greater quantity of boiler-plate, with the result that very large orders from the Tyne and elsewhere are having to be placed abroad and we are obviously coming at the end of the queue as against our competitors. That is putting our firms in a disadvantageous position.
It is the responsibility of the Admiralty to look into the matter to see whether it is possible to secure an extension of the production of this very heavy plate. I fully recognise the problems and difficulties and the reorganisation of plant which would be needed to expand production in this field, but here is a matter of great public importance and one in which I should have thought the Admiralty should attempt to take action. I think it would be a pity if there went out from this House any report of general gloom

about our prospects, because I do not think that that would be wholly justified.
Neither do I think that the Admiralty ought to feel it can sit back comfortably and do nothing about it. Many firms are showing great vigour and activity in dealing with problems and their lead ought to be acknowledged and encouraged. It is the responsibility of the Admiralty to attempt to get the two sides of industry together to work out more effective measures for the future of the industry.

9.38 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Upton (Brixton): The Amendment rightly draws attention to the question of the importance of the shipbuilding industry and its vital role in war. It also draws attention to the need for promoting the greatest measure of stability in all matters affecting the industry. For these reasons I hope that we shall never see a repetition of an incident, fully reported the other day, in which a trawler returned to the sea the body of an airman, apparently one of the casualties from the loss of the Washington bomber over the Irish Sea on 26th January last.
It is true that the Admiralty or the Service Departments and the Merchant Navy must have the closest degree of co operation in time of war, but that co operation ought to exist without exception in time of peace. It can happen that in time of peace an unfortunate incident takes place and it is only right that the Admiralty and the Service Departments should be able to rely to the utmost possible extent on the co-operation of the Merchant Navy if and when such circum stances arise. As a result of this incident, so far from improving the stability in all matters affecting the industry to which the Amendment refers—

Mr. Speaker: I do not know how the hon. and gallant Gentleman relates what he is saying to the problems of shipbuilding.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It was pointing out that the Amendment refers to the need for promoting the greatest measure of stability in all matters affecting the industry. In my submission, it does not tend to promote stability in the industry when, as a result of the incident to which I have referred, four deck hands have refused to sail in the trawler to which—

Mr. Speaker: That is far too remote from the Amendment to be in order.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Do I under stand, Mr. Speaker, that any further reference to the need for stability in the Merchant Navy is out of order, because—

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to is far too remote from the Amendment to be relevant.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I was trying to argue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members opposite are not concerned about the deplorable episode to which I have referred, that is their business.
I was trying to indicate, Sir, that the Merchant Navy, as is pointed out in this Amendment, has a vital role in war and that we must have—

Sir L. Ropner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you consider the advisability of pointing out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are talking about the shipbuilding industry and not the shipowning industry?

Mr. Speaker: I thought I had already done so and I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will now accept my Ruling.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Of course I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, although hon. Members opposite seem to think I am departing from it. I am trying to suggest that it is not sufficient merely to talk about building ships if we do not also consider the use to which they are put and the competence of the people in charge of them. I am asking the Admiralty—

Mr. Richard Stanley: rose—

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: No, I will not give way any further.
I am asking the Admiralty to ensure that there is a close degree of co-operation between the Admiralty, as the Service Department concerned, and the Merchant Navy, so that investigations may be carried out into circumstances which lead to incidents of the kind I have mentioned, involving Service personnel. The Merchant Navy can be of the greatest value to the Admiralty. If, in peace-time, the crew of a merchant ship

see a mine floating in the sea, it is their duty to notify the Admiralty so as to keep the sea passages safe and prevent the destruction of the shipping of which hon. Gentlemen opposite are saying we should have more.
I hope that the Admiralty and the other Service Departments will make it their business to see that such deplorable incidents as the one to which I have referred do not occur in the future.

9.44 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Wingfield Digby): I wish, first, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) on the able way in which he introduced the Amendment. He mustered a remarkable number of facts about this industry which revealed that he had given careful study to the problem. I would also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) for the way in which he seconded the Amendment in what I thought was a very interesting speech.
It may seem strange to hon. Members that in a debate on Service Estimates we should be discussing shipbuilding, but I think that, on reflection, they will see the very close connection which exists between defence and the shipbuilding and shipping industries. Indeed, anyone who reflected on the part which those two industries played in the two recent wars would certainly be convinced of their relevance on a day like today.
The Admiralty is concerned in a dual capacity with the shipbuilding industry. First, it is the sponsor of the industry; second, it is its best customer. As sponsor of the industry, it is the Admiralty's duty to watch events in the world which affect the industry, and that we endeavour to do to our best advantage. The First Lord and I have frequently visited shipyards throughout the country, and there we have had a chance of learning about the problems of the industry at first hand, and have been able to talk to the management side and the trade union side alike about those problems.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), and another hon. Member, asked whether it might not be necessary for the Admiralty, as sponsor of the industry, to have the advice of a


working party. The Admiralty has considered that and has come to the conclusion that it is not really necessary. There is already the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee which was set up in 1947 specially to advise the Admiralty on the problems of the industry. The committee's terms of reference are extremely wide, and the committee includes representatives of both sides of the shipbuilding industry and both sides of the shipowning industry. I feel that the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee, which has been doing very valuable work, is fully qualified to do the same kind of work as would be done by a working party.
The second way in which the Admiralty is connected with the industry is as a customer. Defence orders at present with the industry amount to £120 million. It is perhaps not generally realised how close and technical a link there is between the Admiralty and the shipbuilding and repairing industries. The results of much of the technical research carried out in Admiralty establishments such as Haslar are made available, and are, I believe, of use, to the merchant shipbuilding industry. The Admiralty has a very close link with the industry there.
At the present time 20 per cent, of the men in the industry employed on new construction work are engaged on Admiralty work. Many Admiralty orders, especially for minesweepers, go to the smaller yards, which, as a number of hon. Members have shown they realise, are those which are at present most in need of help. The work of the smaller yards is running out very much faster than that of the larger yards which build the bigger ships.
The Amendment speaks of the importance of the shipbuilding industry. The Admiralty needs no convincing about that. If it were technically possible, we should have been willing to accept the terms of the Amendment, but that is not possible owing to the rules of order. Not only is the industry important to a number of towns and cities represented by hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and, therefore, important for the employment of a very large number of people; it is also important to the economy of the country as well.
I do not want to bore the House with too many figures, but there are one or two that I should like to give. The earnings of shipbuilding from United Kingdom owners last year amounted to £90 million and from foreign owners £35 million, a total for the year of £125 million. Turning to the shipping industry, we find that the indirect earnings of foreign currency are about £135 million, excluding oil.
I now turn to another aspect of the importance of the industry to the country. There is the question of war potential. It is most important for us in time of war to have available yards where we could build the necessary ships, both warships and merchant ships. As several hon. Gentlemen have clearly recognised, the history of this industry has tended to be one of booms and slumps, and I suppose it would be true to say that there is no industry in the country more sensitive to world trade than the shipbuilding industry.
Since 1939 the industry has enjoyed a long period of unbroken prosperity, and in 1952 a record was reached, when more than seven million tons were on the order books. At the present moment the position is not quite so satisfactory. There were 5,500,000 tons on the order book at the end of last year, two million tons of which are under construction. Last year employment in the industry rose by 7,200, although some of those men have come from the ship repairing industry, where the work is not so heavy as it was, largely because of the volume of new construction which there has been since the war—

Mr. Dugdale: Would the hon. Gentleman say what is the total increase or decrease, including shipbuilding and ship repairing workers, because he cannot change from one to the other?

Mr. Digby: They are two separate industries, but the total would be about the same and the 7,000 increase in the shipbuilding industry would about cancel out the decrease in ship repairing, but I am speaking without the relevant figures being before me.
As to the future of the industry, there is. of course, the question of steel. Undoubtedly, with a greater flow of steel, output during the coming year could be increased. A number of hon. Gentlemen


have spoken about steel plate, particularly the hon. Members for Rotherham (Mr, Jack Jones) and Sunderland, South There is no doubt that the action of the Government, and of the Ministry of Supply in particular, has eased the steel position considerably. Nevertheless, more steel would be useful to cancel out difficulties because of bad sequence deliveries. I do not suppose that enough steel is likely to be available to the industry until new plate capacity is available, because of the great increase in the proportion of plate which is used today.
Undoubtedly, the main problem of the industry is no longer so much that of steel as of future orders. I think that this has been generally reflected during the debate which we have had this evening, and it has been the central problem which the Admiralty has been watching for the last six months or more. Until early 1956, work is there, and the position is satisfactory for the larger yards, although smaller yards will need orders before that. We have naturally to ask ourselves [whether orders will come along after that to make good the deficiency.
Some hon. Gentlemen seem to have assumed that the Government are able to obtain new orders in some easy fashion. But this is essentially an industry which depends upon world trade, and the help which the Government can give is very limited. I think the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) put for ward that point of view—

Mr. Dugdale: May I ask one question? There is one form of help which the Government can either give or withhold. Certain firms would like to trade with countries behind the Iron Curtain. They would like to sell ships to them. What encouragement or discouragement do they get from the Admiralty when they wish to do so? It is not just a question of refusing permits. Are they discouraged even from asking for permits? From the knowledge which I have, that would appear to be the case.

Mr. Digby: I was coming to that point a little later in my speech. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is misinformed on his last point, but I will deal with that later.
As to the kind of help which the Government can give, they are obviously able to give naval orders, and I have already given figures indicating the kind and degree of help which that will be to the industry. But these naval orders are not likely to increase, and in any case they are relatively small compared to the capacity of the industry. Secondly, the Government can help with regard to steel supplies; they have already done so, and further efforts are being made to increase the flow of steel plate to shipyards.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether he has any information on the problem that I raised several times about boiler plate and the problem of the single firm that is producing it?

Mr. Digby: Boiler plate has been one of the most difficult aspects of the steel problem, but it has received attention by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. Then again, the Government are able, by their general economic policy, to be of help to the shipbuilding industry, and I believe that in that way the present Government have achieved a lot.
One or two hon. Members have gone on to speak about the possibility of fiscal measures or subsidies being used for the shipbuilding industry in this country. That is something for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider, and it is rather outside anything that I can deal with. In any case, I have to be careful what I say, Mr. Speaker, or you will call me to order. I am, however, authorised to say that a few days ago the Chancellor received a deputation from the General Council of British Shipping and he is now giving the most careful consideration to what was said. For these reasons, and because the Budget is so near, it would be inappropriate for me to say anything more on this subject at present.
As I have said before, the central factor in obtaining orders for the shipbuilding industry is the state of world trade in general, and freight rates in particular, and I was very glad that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North emphasised these points. With regard to world trade, it is interesting to note that world tonnage of merchant shipping rose in the last year for which figures are available by no less than three million tons, or


3·5 per cent. As to freight rates, the position is not quite so encouraging, the latest index figure being 72 on a base year of 1952. There we see one of the reasons why inevitably the flow of orders must tend to be damped down. Nevertheless, when we come to consider—

Mr. Callaghan: Was that the highest year for freight rates?

Mr. Digby: That was the key year.

Mr. Callaghan: The key and base year? The hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate the significance of this. He said that was the base year. It is not of any particular good to know that, or to tell us that the index is now 72. Will he tell us what the freight rates are by comparison with, for instance, 1947 or 1949 as the base year?

Mr. Digby: I do not think I could do that offhand. It would fall in the province of the Minister of Transport rather than in that of the Admiralty. When we consider the movement of oil in ships I think the outlook is a little more encouraging because in recent years the movement of oil has been increasing by about 5 per cent., although that is only a very rough figure. The world fleet of tankers has been going up considerably more rapidly than that of dry cargo ships.
In addition to these general considerations, in buying ships there are certain other considerations that are bound to be in the mind of every shipowner, in particular early delivery, because very often ships are ordered for a known demand. There is always a heavy financial commitment involved which a shipowner is unwilling to undertake unless he has a fairly clear idea when the ship is likely to be delivered. As has been pointed out in this debate, the mere fact that the order book is getting shorter will of itself help delivery by making delivery dates very much shorter than they have been for some time. Plentiful steel will cut down the length of time it takes to build a ship.
Above all, modern methods, which have been described tonight, for instance, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) will help to reduce the building time of ships and increase the efficiency of the yards. During the last five years no less than

£20 million have been spent on modernisation of one kind and another, and owing to the relaxation of licensing it is now very much easier for shipbuilders to spend money in this very important way.
Then we come to the question of cost. Many of the factors in cost are the same as those which affect delivery dates. Cost has gone up three to four times what it was pre-war. This is an assembling industry, depending largely on components. I think all this adds up to the need in this industry for increasing certainty both as to delivery dates and as to price; and, therefore, the return of the fixed price contract is highly desirable whenever that can be achieved. Some of our competitors overseas are already able to offer a fixed price contract, so that the shipowner knows what the ship is going to cost him when delivered, and it is not very difficult to see that that is an advantage.
In obtaining foreign orders, which have represented in the last few years about a third of the ships produced, there are many factors to be taken into consideration. One is the traditional links which happily exist between shipbuilders in this country and shipowners in countries overseas. In most other respects the kind of considerations that will persuade foreign owners to place orders for ships here are largely the same as the considerations I have been describing. Only last December the Chancellor of the Exchequer altered the credit restrictions with regard to foreign owners placing orders for ships here. Up to that time they were pledged to. repay loans six months after delivery of the ships. That rule has now been relaxed, and I very much hope that as a result further orders will be attracted to this country.
Several hon. Members, and in particular the right hon. Gentleman opposite, have referred to the question of orders from Russia and from countries behind the Iron Curtain. Only the other day we issued licences to a Lowestoft firm for an order for trawlers to a value of nearly £6 million. I should say that we are willing to take orders not only for trawlers, dredgers and tugs, but also for ordinary merchant ships subject to security and quantity controls. The industry have full details of these, and


some firms are at the moment in contact with the trade delegation of the Soviet Government.

Mr. Dugdale: Does the hon. Gentleman know that there are cases where firms could have accepted orders which, in fact, have gone to the Continent?

Mr. Digby: A number of firms have been in negotiation for orders, but have failed to secure firm contracts. Therefore, they have not been in a position to come to us for licences. We cannot negotiate the contracts for them. They must do that themselves, and if they fail there is, of course, no firm order to licence at all.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that if an order for tankers was obtained their delivery would be allowed? If he cannot, will he say why other N.A.T.O. Powers are allowed to construct and deliver tankers?

Mr. Digby: It is quite true that there are certain types of vessels which for strategic reasons we should not be willing to licence. But, in that case, we are in the same position as the other N.A.T.O. Powers.

Mr. Fernyhough: No.

Mr. Digby: Yes.
I must say a word about the question of foreign competition. It has been quite rightly pointed out by one hon. Member that this is not the chief reason for the present decline in orders. Nevertheless, it is something which has come to stay. Our chief competitors— Germany, the Netherlands and Japan— have received great advantages from the reconstruction of their yards owing to the war. Last year Germany increased her output of ships by no less than 57 per cent.
Many of our foreign competitors enjoy State subsidies. They have an adequate supply of steel, and almost without exception they can offer earlier deliveries than we can. In addition, they have an adequate labour force. However, I still believe that on balance we have the advantage with regard to price, and, of course, we have a splendid tradition and a reputation second to none.
The hon. Member for Farnham dealt at some length with the question of the

Merchant Navy. That matter is really outside the province of the Admiralty. It is a Ministry of Transport responsibility, though, of course, the Naval Staff is most anxious that there should be a large and healthy merchant fleet. The figure 18 million tons has again been reached after the depredations of the war. The standards of the merchant ships which are being built and are going into that fleet are going up, both with regard to speed and to the accommodation of the crews. The latter has improved very much indeed.
The prosperity of this very important shipbuilding industry depends essentially on world trade, and on many factors of world trade which are outside the control of any Government. Nevertheless, the Government are watching the industry and, in particular, developments with regard to orders which we shall need after 1956, and which we should like to see placed as soon as possible.
I believe that this industry, with its traditional skill both of management and workers, will be able to respond to the undoubted challenge which now exists because of the difficulty of getting orders in the face of strong competition from overseas. It is an industry in which we have a great deal of experience upon which to draw, and in which we are still the undisputed leaders of the world. We should take a balanced view of the industry's future and be neither too pessimistic nor too optimistic.

Mr. Nicholson: I hope that this has been a useful debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I wish to return to some of the general themes which we were discussing before the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) moved his Amendment. I am sure that all Members welcomed at any rate one part of the statement made by the First Lord. In all our debates on the Navy Estimates since the end of the war, hon. Members from one side of the House or the other—and usually from both sides—have raised the question of the period of foreign service. Most people agree—certainly those who come from naval ports—that the greatest deter-


rent to recruitment in the Navy, and the sorest grievance of the men, has been the lengthy period of foreign service.
Many proposals have been made for dealing with this problem. I believe that when my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was at the Admiralty he gave instructions for a full inquiry into this matter, to see if something could be done to alleviate the position. I realise that great difficulties are involved in carrying out such a proposal, but from what was said by the First Lord it seems that the Board of Admiralty has now made definite decisions in the matter. We shall all watch with great interest to see how these are carried into effect. We are nil very pleased at the announcement made by the First Lord, and we congratulate him on having made it.
On the more general issues of strategy which were discussed at the beginning of the debate it is not possible to pay quite the same compliment to him, because he did not deal in a very detailed or graphic way with the real problems which were posed in the remarkable speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East. That was an extremely interesting speech, and it seemed to me that my hon. Friend had been successful in carrying out a feat in which such notable persons as Philip of Spain, Admiral Van Tromp and Admiral Villeneuve had all failed, namely, to destroy the main Fleet of the Royal Navy in a single engagement. That appeared to be the total effect of his speech.
I am not saying he is wrong on strategic grounds, but whether or not he is it is necessary that we should be told how the Government regard these main problems. It is quite impossible that we should have debates of this nature in which the fundamental strategy on which the Navy is to be based is not discussed by the Government spokesmen. In the recent debate on the Air Estimates there was considerable discussion about the strategy which should underly the policy of the Air Ministry.
Although there were strong differences of opinion in different parts of the House as to what the strategy should be, nevertheless we discussed the general defence strategy of this country, whereas in this debate the discussion on the main issue of strategy has been very one-sided. I hope that the Government will

make a statement on the subject or try to give a clear indication of how the rôle of the Navy fits in with the general defence policy of the country.
Some speakers have referred to an issue which has arisen in all the dockyard towns in the last few months because of the Admiralty's decision to revert to the system of having the holiday periods all at the same time, thus abolishing the system of staggered holidays. Protest has been made from both sides of the House, but it is necessary, on this subject, too, that the Admiralty should state its position much more clearly. What it has done in abolishing staggered holidays, which have existed since the war, is to defy the clear statement of Government policy made by all the other Ministers.
It has been the policy of successive Governments to encourage staggered holidays. During the war the Catering Wages Commission and its two standing committees, each appointed by the Ministry of Labour to encourage the idea of spreading holidays and seeing that they were not all cramped into the same period, inquired into the matter. After the war considerable efforts were made, through Government encouragement, to get individual firms to take such action and to ensure that the holiday period all over the country extended over the longest possible time.
A national publicity campaign was organised, through the Press and the B.B.C. and backed by the Government, in order to stagger holidays. That was continued until 1950, when the campaign was take over by the British Travel and Holidays Association, in consultation with the Board of Trade. As recently as last January, the President of the Board of Trade announced that it was the Government's policy to encourage individual firms and others to stagger their holidays instead of having them all in the same period.
But the Admiralty has flouted the whole of this policy of other Government Departments, and we have the right to ask whether it consulted the Board of Trade before it reached the decision. Did the Admiralty consult any of the holiday associations? We know that the trade unions were consulted, because they gave an emphatic "No" to the proposal. Were the corporations and city


councils consulted? Had they been consulted it would have been discovered that in all the dockyard towns there was a unanimous opinion against the Admiralty's decision.
We have all the hotel associations, all the city corporations, all the trade unions, all the Government Departments concerned—except the Admiralty—opposed to this decision. I can discover no one except the Board of the Admiralty who approves of the decision. A much clearer explanation should, therefore, have been given of the detailed grounds on which the Admiralty reached the decision, because obviously it involves enormous inconvenience for all those employed by the Admiralty.
For the people in the Devonport or Portsmouth dockyards, and all other dockyards, to be told to have their holidays during the same fortnight is a gross inconvenience to them. Surely the Admiralty should have a strict regard for the interests of those who work for it. The Admiralty must have known this subject would be raised on all sides, and I hope that we shall have a clear statement of how much money is involved and how much the Admiralty thinks it will save by this process of planning the holidays over the same period.
When we are told how much will be saved we may be able to judge whether it is worth while involving so many thousand people in so much inconvenience as will be the result of the Admiralty's decision. In any case, I hope that the Admiralty is going to give much closer consideration to this matter before next year and make sure that it consults in very good time the trade unions concerned to see if we cannot get a better arrangement and one which really looks after the interests of the workers in the dockyards better than the Admiralty has done this year.
Now I wish to turn to some other matters connected with the Royal dockyards. When I mention that, I see some of my hon. Friends wincing, but I will put them out of their misery at once. I do not propose to make the same speech as I have made on seven successive occasions on the Navy Estimates. Needless to say, it is not the case that the

Admiralty has adopted any of the recommendations that I have made on previous occasions. It has not adopted any of them properly, and the reason I am proposing to take a fresh course this year is that I am adopting a different strategy.
Instead of attacking on a broad front, I hope to be more effective on one point at least. I do so because it has been suggested, and indeed the Admiralty makes a great song and dance about it in the White Paper which it has issued with the Estimates, that the Admiralty has in fact made a concession to one of the appeals which some of us have been making for the last seven years. If we read the White Paper, it says that the Estimates provide additional resources in the next few years towards modernising dockyard plant and equipment. That has been published as a great new plan and ambitious programme to be embarked upon by the Admiralty.
I want to examine this programme to see whether it is really so big, and in order to discover whether it is real we have to examine carefully what is said in Vote 10 of the Estimates. On the whole of Vote 10, covering works, building and repairs at home and abroad, there is a net decrease for this year of £1,203,000. Vote 10, so far as I know, is the main Vote governing the provision of works and buildings in dockyards and elsewhere, but in this main Vote there is a decrease to start with, and so it does not sound like a great modernisation programme. If we look more particularly at Vote 10. under the special item dealing with new works and additions, there is also a reduction of £1,574,000, so we have to inquire into that a little more closely to see where in fact this great modernisation programme is to be undertaken.
When we look at the detailed amounts to be spent on Vote 10, and the amount to be spent on dockyards and factories, as shown on page 140 of the Estimates, we see that there is an increase of the amount to be voted in 1954–55 on new works of £39,000 over last year. It is quite true that the total amount that will be spent eventually on some of these new works amounts to £1,500,000, but the actual increased amount, according to the statement made in the Estimates, to be spent on new work to be started in 1954 and 1955 in the dockyards and factories is no more than £39,000.
That is £39,000 between all the dockyards. It is not exactly a tremendous indication of great enthusiasm for the modernisation programme when the amount to be spent on new works in the dockyards at home amounts to £39,000 increase out of a total Admiralty budget of £400 million, and out of a total increase this year of £23 million. So all that the dockyards are going to get out of this huge increase is this very small amount of £39,000 on new works this year. If I am wrong about these figures, I should be glad to be corrected.
Anyone who examines the figures will see that there is not only a general decrease under Vote 10, but there is in particular a general decrease on the amount for new works and buildings. It is only when one comes down to the particular item on the dockyards that there is a slight increase; and, as I have pointed out, it is very small indeed. It is certainly quite insufficient to deal with the real problems of the dockyards, which we have been describing for the past six or seven years and which the Admiralty has never fully comprehended.
I should also like to know whether, even in this small amount which the Admiralty proposes to devote to the new programme, the individual admiral superintendents are to have any greater powers over how the money is spent compared with what they have had in the past. One of the main recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates, which went into the problem of the dockyards, was that each admiral superintendent in each dockyard should have a bigger sum of money voted to him and much greater discretion as to how to spend it.
The ridiculous fact came out in the cross-examination by the Select Committee that each admiral superintendent had discretion over only £1,000 during the whole of the year, which is fantastic. It was the evidence of all the employees in the Admiralty—all the heads of departments—who came forward and gave evidence at the time of the Select Committee investigation that this was not the real way to do the job. On page 284 of the minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee on Estimates, Session 1950–51, will be seen the evidence given by the heads of the engineering department in Devonport Dockyard.
This was the answer given by one of them:
I think we ought to replace all our obsolete plant in five years and get new plant, plant not now in design, faster tool cutting plant and everything else. If we could get a sum of money to replace that obsolete plant in five years we should increase production probably by 50 per cent.
Does the Admiralty want to increase production in the dockyards by 50 per cent.? This is the way it could be done. If the Admiralty took more money off some of the other Votes and put it on to Vote 10, it would make a real economy and in a few years would be producing much more. The Admiralty need not take my word for it but can take the words of the heads of the engineering departments at Devonport Dockyard, who gave this evidence to the Admiralty: but, of course, all the recommendations of the Select Committee were turned down flat.
The heads of the engineering departments were asked whether it would be an advantage to have greater discretion over the money that was allocated and to decide how best it should be spent, and the answer was "Yes" from everyone. But still the Admiralty thinks that it knows better than the people on the spot who are doing the job. We have given many examples before, but we must go on giving them until the Admiralty realises what this problem is.
A statement was made in Devonport the other day by the superintendent naval store officer, who said:
The rectification of the conditions for road and rail traffic in the yards is long overdue. The North Yard, in particular, is appalling, but I am afraid it will probably be a long time before anything can be done about it.
I have quoted before statements that were made to the Select Committee by several other employees of the Admiralty. The Admiral Superintendent in Devonport Dockyard, for instance, said:
Give us the money to build some decent shops for the men to work in … The position is frightful. It is amazing how the people turn out the work they do … The dockyard is in a very bad state.
All the evidence is in the Select Committee Report of how the whole of the plant and equipment in these dockyards is appallingly antiquated. The surest economy that the Admiralty could make would be to spend much more money on Vote 10 instead of thinking that it can


carry on with the same old equipment and in the same old way in which it has been run for generations past.

Mr. J. J. Astor: If the hon. Gentleman is right in his interpretation of the figures, would he not agree that, according to these Estimates, in the last year this Administration has done more for the dockyards than any other Administration since the war has done in one year? Or is it a decrease?

Mr. Foot: Taking the whole question of works and buildings, I say that on Vote 10 it is a decrease this year, but taking the individual amount on the dockyards it is, as I have said, an increase of £39,000 this year. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood what I have been saying about the dockyards for the last seven years if he thinks I was satisfied with what was done before.

Mr. Astor: No, I do not.

Mr. Foot: It may even be possible that what we have said before has penetrated, that the Admiralty has begun to understand the importance of Vote 10, because we have been shouting about it for seven years. But the Admiralty has not learned sufficiently.

Mr. Walter Edwards: Is my hon. Friend not aware that the main portion of the money spent in the dockyards in the last two years has been spent because the Labour Government had a planned programme, as a result of which this money had to be spent?

Mr. Foot: Some of the money has come forward because it was allocated before, but as I said to my hon. Friend when he was in office, and as I say to him again, it is nothing like enough. He need not take it from me. He can take it from the Admiralty Superintendent of Devonport Dockyard or all the trade union leaders in the Admiralty dockyards, whichever one he likes.

Mr. Edwards: We did it.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend may say he did it, but the work is not done. Take the way they run the lorry system, with lorries parked all over the place in Devonport Dockyard, blocking the shops

and ships. It is a hopelessly chaotic system. The lorries have to go some distance away to fill up. Streams of lorries can be seen going off half empty or completely empty, and the taxpayer can look on and see how a great part of his money is being wasted.
As I said to my hon. Friend when he was in office, this is the opinion of everyone who inquires into it on the spot. The dockyards are hopelessly antiquated and inefficient. People have to work in workshops that are a disgrace. Therefore, even though some extra money was voted under the Labour Government, and even though a little extra is perhaps to be voted this year, it is nothing like enough to do the main job which has to be carried out. I say the Admiralty has got its priorities wrong in this, just as I believe it has got its main strategy wrong. If the Admiralty decided what money to spend in improving the equipment of the dockyards and to step up the amount in terms of millions instead of a few thousands it would be the very best economy that it could make.
Whilst the Admiralty is puzzling its head so much in discovering what ships to build, and whilst it is very uncertain about what kinds of ship it ought to be building, it might at any rate take some money from those Votes and use it to put in proper order the machinery which it will require for building the equipment that it will need in future, which would be a much wiser course than the one which the Admiralty has followed in the past.
I know that many hon. Members who do not come from dockyard towns may think this is a small matter, but if they take the trouble to read through the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates which went into this matter they will see that all those working in the dockyards say exactly what I have been saying. Much more should be spent under Vote 10. I have quoted one eminent authority in Devonport Dockyard who has said that doing that could very quickly increase production in the dockyard by 50 per cent. This is what I am asking for in the interests of the nation as a whole, because it is wrong that these vast industrial organisations, which is what the dockyards are, should be left in an antiquated state.
The Admiralty must embark upon a capital investment programme in the dockyards. The case has been proved by the quotations I have already given, but which I propose to go on giving until the Admiralty decide to take some action. I have got to be grateful for the fact that out of the £400 million we have now got a few thousand pounds extra. Some hon. Members opposite are easily satisfied, but if they want anything out of the Admiralty they should not need to go about in in that way.
I do not want to end on a note that is not cheerful. Last year we got one small concession from the Admiralty, the appointment of a deputy manager for a limited period in one of the dockyards. That was a great, daring experiment in the civilianisation of the dockyards. Are we to have some report of what has happened? Has catastrophe followed? Have there been all the appalling consequences which some people foresaw? The Admiralty embarked on the terrible programme of interfering with the naval officers in the dockyards, but we know that it was a sop thrown to the Select Committee—one small, timid, miserable experiment in the face of the massive proposals put forward by the Committee.
Now we have got another, a few thousand pounds extra, a pious hope in the White Paper. We have had two concessions from the Admiralty in two years, which shows what daredevils we have got at the Admiralty now. I hope the Admiralty will be encouraged to go on, but, as I have said before, it must be very careful. It can be dangerous to grant only a few concessions now and then, as dangerous as the obstinacy of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, who gave a few concessions but not the main ones needed. I warn the Admiralty that if it continues this policy there is going to be a revolution, a revolution which is going to carry into effect all the recommendations not only of the Select Committee two years ago, but those of the Committee which made the same recommendations way back in the year 1927.

Commander Noble: Before the hon. Member sits down, I should like to correct a point on which he has been harping for some time. He seems to have forgotten that the new equipment and machinery for the dockyard does not come under Vote 10 but Vote 8, and

in Vote 8 we have a £7 million programme for a period of four years, and this year we are going to spend £1 million on it.

Mr. Foot: The hon. and gallant Gentleman interrupted me before I sat down. I am afraid that his main argument only confirms what I have said, because under Vote 10 comes the money required for the overhaul of roads, railways and other things in the dockyards, and it is there that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's interruption is most misleading. However, no doubt we shall have an opportunity to examine these individual Votes. If the Government do not attempt to report Progress, enforce the closure or anything of that sort, I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I shall be most happy to examine the Votes in great detail.

10.38 p.m.

Commander J. W. Maitland (Horn-castle): It has been my lot to follow the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) on several occasions when he has been making one of his famous seven speeches, but I have never heard him in such optimistic voice as he is this evening. It is a great achievement for the Government, because they seem to have put him in such good humour.
The main theme of this debate has been, as I always thought it would be, first, the question of the strategic future of the Navy and, following from that, the difficulty of recruiting. I agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) that until the long-term future of the Navy is settled and the shape of things to come is more clearly seen, it is very difficult to expect young men to devote their whole lives to the naval service.
I was much impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I thought that it sized up the whole matter clearly and fairly. I do think that it is vital that we should face these rather difficult problems and not be frightened of them merely because they are controversial and difficult. We must settle them, for to settle them is to the great interest of the country.
These problems obviously devolve on who is to control what kind of weapons


in the future, and here, without doubt, the question of aircraft comes in. For example, are they to be shore-based or sea-based; who is to control them? These, I suggest, are problems for the real experts to settle. We in this House who have a great love for and faith in the Service in which we have served, often feel that any criticism or doubt which may be cast on the importance of our particular Service is quite wrong. Our anxiety complexes are apt to throb, and we are apt to say things which are by no means for the good of co-operation between the Services.
Before the war, I remember the controversy which raged over the Fleet Air Arm, and I do beg some of the retired senior officers—and this applies equally to each of the three Services—not to give tongue on matters which, sometimes, do not help the proper solution of these great problems. Particularly, I suggest, that should be remembered in another place. I do believe that these problems would be easier to face if we politicians left them to the expert and only expressed our determination that they should be faced and solved.
The solution of these problems does not only affect this country. The Royal Navy today is part of the N.A.T.O. setup, and all these problems have to be solved together; we have to co-operate very carefully with other countries. In that connection, I was very interested, when looking at the United States estimates devoted to their Army, Navy, and Air Force respectively to see that the proportion of money which they devote to each Service respectively is quite different from our allocations here.
We have to decide on a general strategy and, when that is approved and agreed, I think a great many of the difficulties of recruitment will end. It would be lamentable if the great traditions of the Royal Navy were lost to the service of our country. We have some of the finest of our young men in the Royal Navy, and it is only right and just that their future should be made secure and that they should be able to serve their country with that knowledge.
I should like to turn for a moment to one aspect of the problem of recruitment. I do not think it could be denied

that one of the anxieties which prevent men from signing on for a given number of years is their doubt of what they will do when they come out of the Service. All of us who have served have probably had that anxiety ourselves, and it means a great deal to feel that there is security about the future. I know that in the depots people are advised about getting jobs when they leave the Service, but we ought to go much further than that for these men who have come forward to serve in an arduous and difficult life.
Let us remember that whatever we do cannot make it much less arduous because, among other things, there will always be foreign service. There will always be separation for wives. Life on the mess deck will never be like living in a comfortable house. We owe a debt of gratitude to the men who devote their lives to serve the country in the Royal Navy, and there is a strong case—perhaps this is the moment to deal with it, now that we are short of recruits—for the Ministry of Labour, the Admiralty and the trade unions to get together to see what can be done to help men who are leaving the Navy.
I have discussed with people in the Ministry of Labour a suggestion which I believe to be practicable. I suggest that it is possible to take retired members of the Services, both officers and men from the lower deck, into the service of the Ministry of Labour to help the Navy to get these men into jobs. It is true that some such organisation exists in the Appointments Bureau. We should extend it so that every sailor may feel that his country is doing its utmost to see that he gets a good job when he leaves the Service. If we are to do that, we must have people available who can look at a man's history sheet and say, "Here is an able seaman with two good conduct badges and a first-class record, and he should be capable of holding down such and such a job." Such people would know what sort of job the sailor could do. This work could be done by recruiting to the Ministry of Labour men who have special knowledge of the capabilities of sailors and of the way in which the Navy conducts its affairs.
Another matter which has always worried me is the way in which the Navy deals with promotion. It promotes by merit, and its promotion is perhaps the


most highly competitive form of promotion anywhere. That is right, for we must make great efforts to get the best men into the right places. On the efficiency of the senior officers depends the happiness and safety of all the men under their command. It is essential that we should choose the best.
Our mistake is that we divide our promotion periods into zones, and once men get to the top of their zone they have no more hope. I have seen that happen so often. I have seen lieutenant-commanders pass out of the zone, and for a few more years they are pushed about from one job to another. They know that they cannot be promoted. It happens, too, on the lower deck. I have seen so many chief petty officers who can get no further.
Yet remember how efficient were some of the officers and men we promoted to acting rank in the war. Who could say that the acting warrant officers we made straight from chief petty officers did not earn their keep? A chief petty officer because of educational reasons, has failed to become a branch officer. Why should he feel that he can go no further? The man who has just failed to attain commissioned rank and has become a chief petty officer at an early age, has no future. Is it not natural that he should leave the Service? How can we expect him to sign on for a long period?
I have always felt, both with officers and men, that the door should always be open. Everybody knows that when a man has passed a certain age he is not likely to be promoted, but it should not be impossible. There should always be a chance so that by some brilliant action, possibly the wiping out of a black mark which he has been given in the past, he can get a little further in the Navy. I would ask the Admiralty seriously to consider this point. It means a big change in things that have gone on for many years, but it would be a great advantage in getting people to sign on for longer periods, as they should.
Finally, I should like to say that the Navy today is going through a period of change. Things may be very different soon. There was a peculiar expression which emerged in the defence debate— "a middle-piece" officer: I have never heard it before. It is a shocking expression. But there is a great need for the

Admiralty to use the ideas of lieutenant-commanders and commanders, whom I suppose to be middle-piece officers, more than it has done in the past. I think it interests ships' companies to be set problems. I remember one admiral under whom I served did do that, and it went extraordinarily well. One can get a lot of ideas from men aged 35 years who have given much thought and study to their profession. I should like to see more of that sort of thing done.
In one ship I was in we were told we would have to have a big refit to produce a new form of ammunition supply. We did not want the ship cut to pieces. We did not think it would be efficient if it was. So we all set to, from the captain down to the gunner's party, to think out a different way of doing it. The chief ordnance artificer produced the best scheme, and it was accepted and the country was saved many thousands of pounds. He won a prize of £5. Much can be done by the use of prizes to assist in studying ship's problems and asking men what their views are on a particular subject. That might help to solve the grave problems which lay before us. I commend these ideas, for what they are worth, to the Admiralty.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Percy Wells: The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) will pardon me, I hope, if I do not follow him, because it is 40 years since I left the Navy, and I have not had an opportunity of keeping in touch with my branch of the Admiralty service to the extent that would justify my following the line which he has taken in this debate.
I was rather surprised when I listened to the speech of the First Lord to find that he almost completely ignored what was happening in the Royal Dockyards. We have had some discussion about this by Members on both sides of the House today, and I want to reinforce one point which was made by all of them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. J. J. Astor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) have all referred to the closed period which the Admiralty has enforced on workers in the various dockyards. I do not want to elaborate that matter,


although it is a very serious one. All I would say is that I hope that the First Lord has noted that from all parts of the House that he has been asked to give some further consideration to it.
There is only one point that has not yet been made that may usefully be made now, and that is about the effect on education of the Admiralty decision. I understand that there is some difficulty at Chatham Dockyard. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) will, I hope, excuse my mentioning this, but I also have constituents employed there. The education officer is desirous of avoiding a clash between the dockyard closed period and the school holidays. In my constituency there is a very large firm, Bowater Lloyd Ltd., which also has a closed period that does not coincide with the dockyard closed period, and that makes it doubly difficult to arrange matters satisfactorily from the point of view of education. I hope that the appeals made from both sides of the House for reconsideration of this matter will not be lost sight of.
I want to turn to a constituency matter about Sheerness Dockyard. Many years before the war I was concerned in a difficulty that arose there over C109 coaling hulk. It was hoped to start a payment-by-results scheme, which was resisted by the members of my trade union at that time because of the then considerable amount of unemployment. They were under the impression that if they entered a scheme of payment by results it would mean that eventually some of their comrades would be put out, as they said, "on the stones." After some difficulty we got such a scheme accepted. My information is that after the first teething troubles had been overcome the scheme worked excellently, and that it is working so to this day. I understand that there have been no complaints from the Admiralty to the employees' side of the shop committee about this coaling operation as performed in Sheerness Dockyard.
Recently, so I am informed, a proposal has been made to let this work out to a private contractor. I understand that representations have been made through the usual channels at Departmental level, but that no satisfactory answer has been obtained so far. It may be that it is

only a rumour, but if that be so it is difficult to understand why satisfaction could not have been given to the trade union representatives at Departmental level. In any case, the rumour exists; there is a feeling of uncertainty; and 1 appeal to the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to do all he can to assure the employees on that job that there is no substance in the rumour.
Another matter I wish to mention is the allocation of tugs. I understand that this has also been dealt with at Departmental level. The question arises as a result of a memo, exhibited on the notice board at Chatham Dockyard. As a result, it is thought by many employees at Sheerness Dockyard that an attempt is to be made to reduce the number of duty tugs. At present there are two. There have been two ever since I was first connected with the dockyard over 40 years ago. I understand that the proposal is that one duty tug should be stationed at Chatham: in other words, Sheerness is to lose its duty tug.
The question has been taken up at Departmental level. Employees' representatives have been told that the matter cannot be discussed because it is top secret and the memo, to which I referred was put on the notice board in error. I hope that I can be given an assurance on this point. It is the opinion of skilled craftsmen that if we are to have only one tug, though it is to be hoped that the Admiralty will not run the risk of having only one, the most sensible place at which to station it is Sheerness rather than Chatham.
I do not want to place myself in competition with Chatham, for I am advised by those who have been operating the tugs for many years that two tugs are essential. I hope that note will be taken of my comments. If I can be assured that there is nothing in the matter, I shall be as happy as the men for whom I speak.

Commander Noble: I will certainly look into the two points about Sheerness Dockyard, and let the hon. Gentleman know my view as soon as possible.

Mr. Wells: I am pleased to hear that.
There is a feeling in Sheerness that work is gradually being taken away from the dockyard. About three years ago the naval stores department was taken to Chatham. The Fleet Reserve has


recently been taken away. Now we have these rumours about the removal of other work. When one remembers that employment in the dockyard is almost the only work open to men on the Isle of Sheppey, one realises that this is a serious matter. I am informed that the removal of the naval stores department, taking into consideration the transport and the waiting for materials and components, hardly achieves the saving which was anticipated when the change was made.
Finally, I wish to refer to what was happening at Sheerness just over a year ago when the dockyard suffered considerable damage in the floods. A frigate and a submarine were submerged, and it was thought for a time that they would be total losses; but because of the skill and loyalty of the men concerned they were saved. I understand that they are either in service or are about to come into service soon. Not only was the dockyard staff able to give service in the dockyard but it was able to perform wonderful work for the civilians in the nearby area. I hope, therefore, that we shall not be faced with the position of this continual whittling away of work from a yard on which such a large number of my constituents depend for their livelihood.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I am sure that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) will forgive me if I do not deal with the topics which he has raised, as my only experience of that part of the world was confined to my R.N.V.S.R. training days before the war. I should like for a few minutes to mention a few points that have been exercising some of us recently, and this seems to be the opportunity to raise them.
First, I think that some of us were alarmed to see an article in a national newspaper regarding disaffection in the Navy. I feel quite sure that there were no grounds for this concern and that when the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary comes to reply he will reassure us on that aspect. But it seems to me that the trouble here is one which was touched on in the opening of the debate, that of man versus machines. Those of us who have come up against this problem in the war will know the constant struggle and battle it was to reconcile old ships which were constantly having new equipment

put in them, especially on the mess decks, where the equipment had to be under cover, thereby taking space from the men.
It is a problem which will always be with the Navy, and, as has been said several times today, life in the Navy can never be easy. But one must be assured that everything is being done— and I am sure it is—to study that problem and to see that as far as possible these articles of equipment are not put into ships as an afterthought if it can be avoided; and I think there must be, and probably is, in future planning new thinking regarding the accommodation of ships' companies from smaller warships and auxiliary ships, ashore as much as possible. What the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) said about conditions of the heads and bathrooms in his ships reminded me of what happened in one of my own ships during the war, where we had no bathrooms at all. So hurriedly, before coming home across the Atlantic, we slopped down some cement on the iron deck, and put up some iron stanchions, and when we got back to the dockyard said that our bathrooms had been washed away, and we got new ones built.
Regarding recruiting, I should like to make a suggestion concerning the Sea Scouts and Sea Cadet movements. I understand that Sea Scouts are not granted entry into the Navy unless they are Queen's Scouts, and that Sea Cadets cannot be granted entry into the Navy unless they are Cadet petty officers. Of course, they can go in through the R.N.V.R., but in distant counties like Cornwall it is often very difficult for them to serve in the R.N.V.R. because of the distances they have to travel for their training.
I wonder if recruiting could be helped by improving our propaganda. After all, although all the means of entry into the Service are made known to the various units, some units are better than others. I suggest that perhaps the Service could be helped by the inclusion of more highly qualified officers, who could inspire enthusiasm by going round lecturing to these units and telling them more about the Service and how they can get into it, and what they can do when they get there.
I think there is something in what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) said about asking for advice. I remember on one occasion during the war when we had a piece of equipment put into the ship which every single officer and all the gunnery ratings said was useless. We simply steamed from one port to another, where it was ripped out and thrown away.
I wish to ask about minesweeping training, especially as it concerns R.N.V.R. personnel. Have they got modern ships and enough of them in which to train, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) said in a most excellent maiden speech, there is no substitute for sea training, especially in the complicated procedure of minesweeping? We know that problem is going to be one of the most appalling which any country will face at the beginning of a war, with ports being sealed up, and so on. I hope that I detected a more hopeful note in the First Lord's speech this afternoon as regards dealing with that menace. I also hope that their Lordships are satisfied that there are enough R.N.V.R. officers and ratings successfully carrying out this training.
In this connection, I want to raise once more the question of the travelling allowances of R.N.V.S.R. officers. Many of these officers had six years' continuous sea experience during the war. They are young enough to be very valuable still today. They do not mind about the pay, but it would help if their travelling expenses could be made up to them.
Regarding fishermen's training, I understand that adequate numbers are coming through under the List B scheme whereby they do four periods every five years. It is hoped that many of them will join the Patrol Service at the end of the five years. The Outward Bound Trust is considering training young men to go into the fishing industry, and educational grants are being provided. I stress this because I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that the fishing industry is vital, not only in peace-time for the purpose of providing food and manning our lifeboats, but as a reserve of trained seamen to go to sea in the Patrol Service, minesweeping and so on instantly on the outbreak of

war, because men in that service know more about seamanship than most of us will ever know.
I wish to make two points regarding this vexed question of the Fleet Air Arm. The First Lord today mentioned trade protection carriers. Are they the kind of ships which we used to know as "MAC" ships, or are they light carriers or what is their official description? Can we be told if there has been any development in this country of the seaborne jet aircraft? I understand that considerable research and development have taken place in America in regard to these aircraft, and that a certain amount of success has resulted. Without having gone into this development very fully, it would seem that there might be tactical advantages in it. Aerodromes are not needed for these aircraft. Have we cooperated with America in the matter?
Regarding the tactical use of aircraft and aircraft carriers, I only wish to say, in conclusion—and I say this without any disrespect to the Royal Air Force—as one who spent many years going backwards and forward across the oceans, that it appears to me that the problem of shore-based aircraft is surely the fact that there are times when such aircraft cannot get off the ground because of prevailing conditions, but when, if the convoy is being protected by carrier-borne aircraft, the weather for them may be perfect. There are many occasions when it would be not advisable for this task to be in the hands of another Service.
From my experience in the war, under very arduous conditions, such as Russian convoys, when we had carriers operating inside the destroyer screen in extraordinarily hazardous conditions, the service that they gave to the convoy could not have been beaten by anybody, and we had the advantage of having them with us all the time. I do not think that we need be too worried about the position of the Senior Service. I am quite sure that it will meet any changes that come. It always has done in the past, and I hope and I know that it always will in the future.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: Many hon. Members in this debate, and particularly on this side of the House, have spoken on behalf of their constituents, representing, as they do,


dockyard towns. I hope I shall be allowed to inform the House, as probably most hon. Members are not aware, that Preston, my constituency, is also a dockyard town. We have a small but very efficient municipal port.
That brings me to a question of substance—and I see that there is a Vote which is concerned with the organisation in peace-time of shipping services—namely, how far is the Admiralty considering the use of these small and efficient ports, like Preston, in the event of a serious emergency, when the main ports might possibly be put out of action by atom bombing? I ask that consideration should be given to Preston as well as to Sheerness in this matter.
I am glad to see that the First Lord is back in his place, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will also soon be back. I shall reserve some of my remarks in the hope that he will come back.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: He is refuelling and refitting.

Mr. Shackleton: The First Lord did not say very much about the subject of N.A.T.O. I want to draw his attention to the enormous hazards that afflict both the Navy and the Air Force in peacetime due to the institution of N.A.T.O. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) will, I am sure, be sympathetic on the subject of the extraordinary jargon that has been introduced into N.A.T.O. terminology.
During the last war we used to hear about such institutions as Cominch. I spent a difficult period doing some Reserve training and spent most of it in learning a new vocabulary, including, for instance, Cinceastlant, Saclant, Giblant, Bisclant Comnerlant, Cincairchan and Cincaireastlant. Additional complications arose when we found that Cincairchan was the same as Cincaireastlant. But Cinchan is not the same as Cinceastlant.
The result is further complicated by the extraordinary performance of the Prime Minister, brought about by his original opposition to the appointment of Saclant —namely, the American Admiral Supreme Commander for the Atlantic— as a result of which the Atlantic area of operations, instead of extending right to

the coast of Europe, stops, for some fantastic and arbitrary reason, at the 100-fathom line. We therefore find that a submarine, whether in a war or in an exercise, possibly attacked and sunk just inside the 100-fathom line, is of no interest apparently to the Supreme Commander of the Atlantic. It is of interest only to Cinchan, and also to Cincaireast, who wears the other hat of Cincairchan.
I hope that the First Lord will give some attention to the confusion which is obviously apparent. I fully realise that those who live in this atmosphere of—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Chu Chin Chow.

Mr. Shackleton: My hon. Friend always has the right word. Those who live in this atmosphere of civic "Chu Chin Chow" may understand it, but it is not always fundamentally a very sound situation, and I would ask that the whole question of the demarcation of these various naval commands be reconsidered, and in particular that this ridiculous 100-fathom line rule should disappear, because I can assure the Minister—and I am quite sure he will agree—that there is no military or strategic sense in that decision.
Having got these names off my chest, I should like to turn to the other more important issue which has been discussed, and discussed with great moderation in the debate—and I shall try to do the same—namely, the role of the Navy in our defence Services. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East made an extremely reasonable survey of the situation. I realise that it is difficult for the House to take these technical decisions, but certainly an impression exists, I think, among many hon. Members on both sides of the House, that in the decision taken about the allocation of resources for defence a kind of bargaining game goes on between the various chiefs-of-staff. I do not condemn them for it; it is only human nature.
They all believe, rightly, in the importance of their particular field of responsibility, and they want as big a slice of the cake as they can get for their own Service, conscious of the multitudinous obligations that are imposed upon them. I found the First Lord's speech not very convincing when he said that the Navy has a deterrent rôle to play, which is to deny the use of the sea to a potential


enemy. I find some difficulty in seeing what deterrent is involved in that.
I can see that the prospect of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of one's fellow citizens in violent form from an atom bomb might be a deterrent, but I do not see how the threat to deny the use of the sea can be, especially since, as we know, the possible potential enemy is not fundamentally very interested in the sea compared with the interest taken in it by our historic enemies in the past. I really think it is nonsense to suggest that the Navy has a deterrent rôle.
We know that the Navy has its worldwide tasks, and that is all that the Statement on Defence can find to say about the role of the Navy. I assure the First Lord that I am not trying to pursue a vendetta in this matter, but when we find the Statement on Defence talking—and I am sorry to repeat the horrible expression—about "broken-back warfare" again, it seems to me an extraordinary thing that we are prepared to devote nearly a quarter of the funds available for the prevention of war and the defence of this country on a Service the purpose of which, according to the accounts we have so far, is mainly for the conduct of war in its ultimate stages, when the major blows have already been delivered.
I fully realise that there is enormous skill, self-reliance, discipline, ability, tradition and, indeed, magnificent qualities in the Navy, qualities which I say quite frankly are not to be surpassed and possibly not equalled in the other Services.

Mr. Callaghan: And certainly not to be thrown away.

Mr. Shackleton: Certainly, not to be thrown away, but that in itself is not a sufficient reason, when we are faced with these hard decisions and the defence budget is as high as it is today, unless, of course, there are strong military and strategic reasons in addition.
We have had some talk about some of the jobs that the Navy might have to do. Everybody must concede that there is an important anti-submarine role, although it is likely to come after the initial and terrible first shock of war. None the less, it is there, and the Navy is largely planning its development for that purpose. But it is questionable how

far it should devote resources in the way it is doing to capital ships, including carriers, even the light Fleet carrier.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) asked a question about convoy carriers or aircraft carriers, and whether the First Lord was referring to "MAC" ships or escort carriers. I think we ought to know what type of vessel is intended to provide the anti-submarine escort for the convoys. Quite clearly something smaller and a great deal less expensive than even the light Fleet carrier is adequate for the job, but what, then, are the major capital ships for? What is not fully realised is that today practically the whole of the world and the whole of the ocean is within bombing range of land bases. I concede that the question of escort by shore-based aircraft is totally different. But for striking and offensive purposes, whether on the land or on the Navy at sea, long-range strategic bombers, operating in a tactical role, can be used.
During the recent "Exercise Mariner" one striking fact emerged, and I hope the First Lord noticed it. The Fleet was theoretically atom-bombed in Denmark Strait by Canberra light bombers operating from a British base. We have the so-called medium bombers coming along, and the vulnerability of these large ships will be tremendous. This bombing took place from a height of 33,000 feet. There are guided missiles and various anti-aircraft devices available in the Navy, and I have strong reason to believe that they are not effective at the moment, but the atom bomb is known to be available and is only too effective.

Mr. Mikardo: More effective on sea than on land.

Mr. Shackleton: Yes.
There are one or two points I should like to put. The first concerns the future of the Navy and the money that is to be devoted to it in these Estimates. I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East about the natural affinity between the R.A.F. and the Royal Navy. There are tremendous differences in the outlook and the roles of the two Services. That brings up once again the question of whether some attempt ought to be made to try to unify all three Services, because the consequence of these separate Services is the devotion of an unreasonable


and unjustified amount of money to one Service, whose role some people might feel, for sentimental and understandable reasons, has declined very much.
I would say to hon. Members, and particularly those on this side of the House, and especially those who supported the Amendment during the recent defence debate, that here is one field where major economies and reductions can be made. Let me say at once that I supported that Amendment in principle, but found it somewhat difficult to demonstrate in practice. Let the Government look very seriously along the lines of the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East as to whether or not the Government are spending too much money out of that available for defence on this particular branch of the Armed Forces.
It may be, and I confess to some prejudice in this matter, although I am trying to put the case in an unprejudiced way, that when the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary replies, we shall have a rather more convincing account than we have had so far to justify this expenditure. If we do not have a satisfactory account, and one which does answer the question posed, then let the Government face up to the logic of the matter and plan for a reduction in this field.

11.32 a.m.

Captain Robert Ryder: I hope to touch on some of the matters of which the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) has just spoken, but, first, I want to say how much I welcome the announcement by the First Lord as to the arrangements for the Home and Mediterranean Fleets by which ships' companies can remain together longer, and the reduction in overseas service. This, and the facilities for men to buy themselves out, are substantial improvements in the administration of the Navy. In fact, I have no particular quarrel with the administrative arrangements of the Admiralty. My quarrel happens to be on a somewhat different plane.
From the First Lord's statement there is a lack of any apparent strategic plan. At least, it is difficult to see one either in the Explanatory Statement or in what the First Lord has said. Some two years ago, an hon. Friend and I raised on the Air Estimates the question of the control

of maritime aircraft. We asked for an impartial inquiry into this matter, but found ourselves surrounded with much hostility.

Mr. Shackleton: No.

Captain Ryder: Looking back, I feel that it was a bold attempt.

Mr. Shackleton: I said then that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman was prepared to extend the inquiry into the whole status of the Royal Navy and the R.A.F. I would not oppose him. But I thought, as did some of my hon. Friends, that this was a deliberate attempt on that part of the Royal Navy to extend its empire and take in Coastal Command.

Captain Ryder: If the hon. Member will let me go on, perhaps he will come to agree with me. Anyhow, having decided to raise this matter originally, I am encouraged by the increased interest which is now being shown. And I very much welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in dealing with this matter. He put the problem very clearly and forcefully.
I endeavoured to call attention to this problem in the defence debate, and I do not wish to repeat what I then said, except to add that the problem is much more serious than is generally realised. From reports reaching me, I would say that there is a feeling of growing frustration and indignation in the Royal Navy at the way in which, in the development of its principal offensive arm, the Navy is still restricted by an arbitrary decision dating back to 1937.
It is all very well for hon. Members to cast doubts on the value of the carrier, but the Navy is intensely air-minded and looks on the air as being the decisive factor in any future warfare at sea. If the carrier becomes obsolete for offensive purposes, the Navy will be relegated to an entirely defensive role in any future war. If my hon. Friend cares to send for the Admiralty War Manual he will find that first in the list of the principles of war is the well-known platitude that offensive action is the necessary fore runner of victory. It seems to me that if the Navy is to be relegated to an entirely defensive rôle we are heading for very serious trouble at sea in any future conflict.
Indeed, to feel that the high seas should be regarded as a vast no man's land instead of our seeking to play our traditional part in controlling sea communications is most frustrating to those interested in these problems. That is why I say that it is high time for the whole area of co-operation between the maritime branch of the R.A.F. and the Navy to be examined by an impartial inquiry. I do not exclude any solution. It may be that a fusion of the two Services is necessary. But this situation is rapidly becoming intolerable, and the results are beginning to show in the absence of a clear-cut statement on future strategic policy in the debate on the Navy Estimates. I ask the Minister, therefore, if he will take this matter seriously and see whether it can be impartially investigated?

11.39 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: After the number of ex-naval men who have taken part in the debate, I am diffident about intervening, and the only excuses I can offer for doing so are those which I offered last year—that Southampton is not only a great Merchant Navy port but also provides as many young men for the Navy as any other town of its size in the country, that it had the distinction of providing probably the first naval V.C. of the last war and always gives a cordial welcome to units of the Navy when they visit Southampton Water.
The other reason is that to me equality of opportunity is not merely a slogan but a fundamental goal in life, and any move the Navy makes towards equality of opportunity is something that I welcome. Tonight I should like to congratulate the First Lord on the decision which he has taken about cadet entry into the Navy. We have debated and questioned him on this subject on many occasions, and on every occasion we have discussed it the First Lord has unhesitatingly declared that he shared our desire to secure the best officers for the Navy irrespective of their social origin. His actions in the past 12 months have been an abundant indication that he has meant what he has said on many occasions, and if it does not embarrass him some of us would like to hand a bouquet to him across the Floor of the House.
Eighteen months ago the First Lord set up a working party to investigate the question of cadet entry. Entry had for a long time been at 13-plus and 17-plus. The Labour Government abandoned the 13-plus, and introduced a 16-plus entry into cadetship. That was a good thing, I believe. But even after that reform many of us were worried about the preponderance of public schoolboys who managed to succeed, not at the written examination, but at the personal examinations which took place after the written examination. I do not want to repeat all that I have said on this topic in the July debate last year.
The report of the working party, or the Montague Report, as it may be called after its distinguished chairman the Hon. Euan Montague, was a scrupulously fair one. It came down on the side of re-introducing the 13 plus entry. It is true that it safeguarded children of State schools compared with preparatory schools by proposing that 60 per cent, of the places should go to State schools. But, despite its recommendations, the evidence that the Montague working party reported revealed that educational opinion was almost unanimously in favour not of entry at 13-plus, nor at 16-plus, but only at 17-plus. Educationalists in the country wanted boys to complete their general primary and secondary education before they were selected and began their career education as cadets with the Royal Navy.
The majority report said, in clear and emphatic terms, that despite its recommendation in favour of the 13-plus entry, all the members of the working party were prepared to scrap the 13-plus recommendation and any of the major recommendations rather than have the cadet entry a party political matter or one of class division any longer. The First Lord has abandoned the findings of the majority of the working party who reported to him. That was a courageous action.
In spite of all the heartaches which Dartmouth-educated naval officers under the old regime must feel, in spite of the anxieties that people who cherish the old system must feel, I think that the First Lord has made a very wise decision. He has abandoned all idea of going back to the 13-plus entry. He has even abandoned the 16-plus entry, and from 1954


the cadets for the Royal Navy will be recruited under the method educationists recommended to the working party, and at the age of between 17 and 18.
In announcing his decision on 25th November last year, the right hon. Gentleman said something which I want to commend to the House. He said:
The overriding need is to establish a system of cadet entry into the Royal Navy which not only gives the Navy adequate numbers of cadets of the required standard but also conforms beyond dispute with the general trend of educational policy and is entirely outside the field of controversy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1953; Vol. 521. c. 358.]
That, I submit, is an excellent declaration of policy, and anything that furthers such a policy should have the wholehearted backing of both sides of the House. Now the general trend of educational policy under the 1944 Act and in every step which we have taken to implement it is to secure that, in measuring anybody for a job, measuring anybody for a career, what we measure is what is essential and not what is accidental
Those of us who are concerned with the survivals of the caste system in education which still remain in our national system, and who welcome every move towards breaking down the caste system in education, hold the views that we do because we believe that the stratification of our children according to the accident of birth and wealth is not only unjust but is also inefficient. The Navy will draw on richer seams of material if it draws from the whole social structure of the country.
We have heard recently in this House from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-onTees (Mr. Chetwynd) that an eminent Army general has discovered that the South produces more potential Army officers than the North. My hon. Friend tells me that the actual figure of cadets is about three to one of Southerners against Northerners. If this were really true then it ought to concern the psychologists, the educationists, the sociologists of this country to know "upon what meat this South country feeds," to paraphrase Shakespeare, that gives it such predominance in young men of leadership and initiative over the North. I do not believe that it is true. I believe that we have not yet emancipated ourselves from equating accent with ability.
Be it remembered that this question of dialect and of the differences between dialects is not a question of good speech versus bad speech. Southern English, which has become standard English, owes its predominance to the fact that for centuries it was the language of the governing class, of the Court, of the Metropolis, of Parliament, of high society. It is really quaint—it is worse: it is ridiculous—to think that northern English, which is as pure in its own way as any dialect spoken in the South, should carry with it any social connotation, any mark of social, moral or personal inferiority.
I believe that the Army selection boards, in the decisions they come to, are guilty of the same faults that we endeavoured to suggest were to be found in the selection board for Dartmouth Naval College. They are confusing personality, initiative, ability and qualities which we find in any social group of our English children, with the mere veneer of an accent or of a grade of society. To link dialect with personality and the qualities we need in an officer is a snob survival, and a very foolish one.
I understand that Napoleon spoke French with a shocking accent. On that ground he would have failed to satisfy many of the selection boards if he had appeared before them. We want to be certain that, whatever method we use to select at this new fixed age of between 17 and 18, it is one which is free from any social hangovers of class distinction.
I pointed out last July in the debate on the report of the working party that the figures in the report bore the same unhappy features for both age groups in that there was a predominance of public schoolboys in the 17 plus entry for naval cadetships. I do not want to repeat the figures. They can be found in the report. We ought to be certain that the selection boards that we set up to select our young cadets for the 17 to 18 entry embody the reforms which the Montague Report suggested. There should be something like parity between civilians and naval men; there should be parity between State school men and private or public school men; the team which selects should be as free as possible from any suggestion of social prejudice.
In the last 12 months the Admiralty has done a grand job of public relations. There was the open invitation to the


Press to see the selection board at work at Dartmouth, and there was also the broadcast of an interview. These were excellent steps to remove some of the suspicion which had grown up. The public relations work of the Admiralty in the last year has done something to assure us that the best men in the Admiralty, like the First Lord himself, want the best of our young men and are not fettered by the old school tie tradition.
However, publicity and negative assurances are not enough. I, therefore, urged the First Lord, as soon as we heard of it, to take a leaf out of the book of his colleague at the Air Ministry when he launched the Cranwell scholarship scheme. I am delighted beyond all measure that today the First Lord was able to tell us that he proposed to introduce a parallel scheme.
The Cranwell scheme sets up 60 R.A.F. scholarships for youths aged 16. These are earmarked for the sons of citizens earning not more than £1,500 a year. The scholarships are to be awarded at the age of 16, when there will be medical tests, flying aptitude tests, academic and personality tests and an appearance before a selection board, the constitution of which-—again I would urge—is vital.
Having been picked out as a likely lad at the age of 16, the young scholarship holder will carry on at the secondary school at which he is being educated. He takes his advance level certificate subjects, and so on in the VI form. The scholarship is worth about £50 a year if the boy's parents are earning less than £14 a week, about £40 a year if they earn under £1,000. This means that a potential officer who might be lost to the R.A.F. because his parents could not afford to keep him at school will stay on at school, and his parents will get about a pound a week towards helping to keep him there. Then, at eighteen, if he continues to make the grade, and if he is considered worth it, he proceeds to Cranwell and begins his real cadetship.
This means that the Air Minister is pinning his faith on finding 60 likely young cadets in the lower income groups of Britain. It is a positive declaration of confidence in the boys of the ordinary

schools of this country, and it by no means excludes the able lads in the public schools, who can compete for Cranwell in the ordinary way. I am glad the First Lord has said that he proposes to adopt something similar. I hope that the scheme will be identical. I hope that he will, in his own way, earmark a number of cadetships in this way by scholarships for the ordinary lads of this country. After all, the Montague Report itself, in advocating the return to the 13-plus entry, did want to earmark some 60 per cent, of the 13-plus entry for boys at State schools. I believe that if the First Lord will copy the Air Minister he will be carrying out the spirit of the Montague Report.
I have never advanced my beliefs in this House or anywhere else for democratic principles by decrying what older systems have provided. I yield to no one in my admiration of the quality and character of naval officers recruited in the old way. By the same token—and we have had a striking lesson in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) tonight, no one can challenge the fact that the recruitment of officers from the lower deck has by no means impoverished the officer cadre in the Royal Navy, that officers who have come up that way hold their own with their brother officers who came into the Navy the privileged way.
I do not think we should minimise the experimental work of the 16-plus period at Dartmouth. The younger men recruited this way, now reaching officer-ship in the Navy for the first time are, I believe, going to give a good account of themselves. I believe that the old Dartmouth, and what we might call the experimental Dartmouth for this recent short period, have done a great job of work for this country. But I believe that so, too, will the new Dartmouth, if we use it, as possibly we shall, for the cadet training of these older entries.
But now that the controversy is over, now that we have settled on late entry, we must, I hope, agree on both sides of the House to take every positive step we can to see that neither lack of money nor lack of social origin is allowed to stand between a potential naval officer and a career in the Royal Navy. Napoleon, if one may refer to him again, once said that every one of his soldiers carried in


his knapsack a marshal's baton. We ought to be able to assure the young naval enthusiast that every young naval recruit carries in what I believe is called his ditty box an admiral's sword. Any steps that we can take, and particularly the steps that the First Lord has taken towards this goal, we welcome. We congratulate him on what he has done.

12 midnight.

Mr. John Baldock: I wish to speak on the human element in the Royal Navy rather than on strategy, weapons or material. But first a word about the mine position, which was among the subjects in which I specialised. I think that most of us felt that one of the most gratifying parts of the First Lord's speech today was his reference to some progress having been made in developing techniques for sweeping or dealing with the many extremely complicated and highly dangerous varieties of mines which were evolved in and after the last war.
It is hardly possible to exaggerate the potential dangers of these mines if they are laid in our waters, and the problem which has been set the scientists in tackling them is probably as difficult as any they have to deal with at the moment in any of the Services. One can well understand that progress is not likely to be very rapid. In the meantime, however, we must rely to a considerable extent on the minewatching service, and that remains an important organisation.
I was very impressed when watching some extremely senior gentlemen carrying out their drill in minewatching technique with the aid of a very good device which shows little splashes coming up as the mine falls into the water. But I am afraid that, generally speaking, not very much is being done in the way of providing equipment or training for that force. I hope that we are not going to allow the enthusiasm of these people to disappear for want of proper equipment, training, and recognition which they should certainly have.
I wish to refer to the human element in the Royal Navy itself and, first of all, to consider it from the standpoint of training. I feel it is rather disturbing, when £2½ million more is being spent on the Royal Navy this year than last, that there is to be a reduction in manpower of 10,000, because that means that

fewer ships will be at sea, which, in turn, means fewer opportunities for training at sea. This is a particularly acute matter for senior officers.
At the present time captains often spend only one year out of 10 as captains at sea, and this at a time when their duties in war would largely be concerned with being in charge of convoy streams or of anti-submarine task forces consisting of groups of small ships largely manned by the most experienced of my own force, the permanent R.N.V.R., but mainly by the temporary R.N.V.R. There are nearly 200 of these ships in reserve at present, and they would have little or no experience. Therefore, it is particularly essential that the senior officers in command of these groups should be thoroughly experienced in handling them at sea. The tactical table and the games which are played to such a considerable extent in shore establishments are not enough. Wooden models and perspex sea have their place and their value, but they cannot replace the real thing.
As I say, the shortage of manpower is preventing more ships being at sea as opposed to being in reserve. As far as I remember, the chief trouble with the quarter drill was manning the armament to the first degree of readiness. Could not this be overcome in peace-time by having a complement which is only sufficient to man the ship at cruising stations? Surely the whole of the armanent need not be manned. So long as there are sufficient men to steam the ship and to man the control side of the armament, all the necessary exercises and evolutions can be carried out, and if certain people have to show greater flexibility that, surely, is all to the good.
If there is more room on the mess decks by having a smaller complement, surely that is all to the good too, because it will certainly increase the comfort on board. But even this would not preclude the need, which a. number of hon. Members, including my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Major Wall) stressed, for some fresh thinking about cluttering up the mess decks with all the new gear and apparatus.
More men are to be found for the Navy this year from National Service. This could be a valuable source of recruitment. The idea of trying the Navy for two years


may well appeal to a number of lads. Having had a good sight of it from the inside, they can then make up their minds whether they would like to continue for a longer time, without having entered into any commitments other than those which they already have to carry out. But how many of them will continue for a longer time will entirely depend on how well the training is planned.
Turning to the more personal side, I admit that the recent cases of damage to ships, however unimportant, as we all appreciate they are, as far as the individuals are concerned, are disturbing. They indicate that all has not been quite well, or as well as we should like it to be, with the Service. Some most important steps have been taken today and in the last week or two which should go a considerable way to alleviating the causes which have been behind some of these outbreaks.
There is the improved pay; the release of retained officers and men. which was a matter of great importance and a source of considerable grievance; the reintroduction of release by purchase, which puts the Navy in a parallel position with the other Services; and more stable ships' companies as a result of the new two years' general commission, which should allow ratings to enter into closer relationships with their divisional officers and generally develop the sort of spirit which a happy ship requires.
But the new system of a general two years' commission obviously contains certain dangers, the chief one being that it might be detrimental to those who are on the brink of promotion or are wanting to qualify as higher non-substantive ratings. I hope that my right hon. Friend the First Lord will closely watch the position and make it always possible for those who want to take these further steps to be able to do so readily where that cannot be achieved within the ship itself.
After the removal of these grievances and difficulties, however, several others still remain, including the re-engagement bounties, and the difficulties that families find in getting accommodation when they return from overseas, having relinquished their council or other houses, when no married quarters are available. I wonder whether the dockyard towns might not be

able to make special arrangements in this direction. In addition, there is the present situation of branch officers and the condition of junior married officers, who still often find themselves with great financial problems, particularly with regard to the schooling of children.
Nevertheless, at the back of all this feeling of doubt, grievances and unrest, there is perhaps, really more than all these matters, a sense of uncertainty, a doubt about the future place of the Royal Navy in the part of defence. Why should this uncertainty exist? There are still just as many tons of materials and goods —perhaps even more—which have to come into this country as at any previous time. As far as we can see for any possible distance ahead, they cannot come in in any other way than in ships. And yet, with this great defensive role to play, one cannot fail to feel the onset of a slight feeling in the Service that it may be now a Service which is starting to die back towards the roots, to die back to small groups of small ships—frigates, submarines and minesweepers—which are a great contrast with the battle lines, or even the vast aircraft carriers of today.
The Fleet Air Arm is greatly improving, but it is, nevertheless, a truncated and unbalanced service. It is not large enough; it is not sufficiently well-equipped, even now, to be able to disperse the onset of this feeling of the contraction and obsolescence in the Navy. Yet that is not so in all navies. Perhaps it has escaped the attention of some hon. Members that the Douglas Skyray, which at present holds the official world speed record in the air, is a carrier-borne aircraft, but it seems a far step from the days when our own Fleet Air Arm could produce an aircraft which could regain the world speed record for this country.
The defence of our vital convoys requires the closest co-ordination of sea and air. whether close inshore or in the open sea, whether threatened by submarines or air raiders. Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I believe the question of the place of the Navy, of Coastal Command and the Fleet Air Arm merits fresh consideration at the highest level. It deeply concerns not only our very safety but


the future of two highly-respected Services.

12.12 a.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: The House will not be surprised if I ask a few questions of the First Lord with reference to the general health of naval personnel, and say a few words about it myself. I am under certain difficulties, because nothing has been published since 1937–38, so far as I know. Before the war the Navy published each year an account called "Navy Health," and very interesting and full reports they were, giving vital statistics, showing what was happening to enable naval people trained in medicine to get quite easily a bird's eye view of the general life of people according to their rank in the Navy itself. Although published in 1937–38, the figures referred to 1936.
We understand that we could not get anything during the war, but my first request to the First Lord is that, now that we are in 1954, we should, as I think we have a right to expect, return as quickly as possible to this very important custom and have these annual reports published again as we did in the past. For the years when they were published, these reports showed that men were prone to sickness, and there was therefore a wastage—a very important factor and something which we should avoid, if possible—very much as in civilian society. However, special hazards are run by men who have to live together under crowded conditions, where amenities associated with hygiene and lavatory accommodation are perhaps not as good as are normally found on land.
I note that in 1936 there were a considerable number of outbreaks of food poisoning, and there were listed over 700 cases of enteritis and over 500 cases of acute appendicitis. I should very much like to know, if possible—although I doubt whether it is possible tonight— whether there has been, as I think there must have been, a very real improvement since that year. It is interesting to read that in a year like 1936 medical men thought that the cause of duodenal ulcers was because men had a tendency to bolt their food. I very much doubt if there is any truth in that and whether any of us believe it today.
A much more important illness is lung disease, particularly infectious lung disease, and I note that in the printed reports before the war there was a variation according to the depot of the men. There is a variation according to where they served and the sort of ship in which they served. I do not want to place too much reliance on these figures, because sometimes the number of men is small and the percentages can be deceiving. But I note that there were two people out of 1,000 on an average who suffered from pulmonary tuberculosis, a high figure for a healthy group of men who are so carefully selected. Then two out of every 1,000 suffered in each year on an average from pleurisy, which today we would also accept as tuberculosis, so that it makes the total four out of 1,000. It would be interesting to know whether the figures for the Navy have really improved. Those for the civilian population have improved considerably since 1935 and 1936.
The Navy has a very proud record in mass radiography. It has been using miniature mass radiography for 15 years, which is much longer than any other Service. I think it is only about a year ago that we were able to get from the Army the information that every recruit was being mass X-rayed before he was taken into the Service. We have heard in this House of the tragic consequences of recruits for the Army being taken in suffering from tuberculosis, and how there had been no X-ray before they were brought in.
The Navy is to be complimented because it is so far ahead, and it has been far ahead of the other Services for obvious reasons, namely, that in some of these ships there is not much accommodation, and if one man suffering from tuberculosis is allowed in he can infect those with whom he is sleeping or with whom he is dining because they must be grouped together in certain circumstances.
It is interesting to note that men in submarines are not so badly off on the bases of the figures that I have been able to look at. Indeed, only the men in the training ships are better off. The training ship figures are the best; that is to say, there are fewer cases in training establishments, about one per 1,000. In submarines the figure is 1·75 per 1,000. The worst off are those in the destroyer


depot ships where the figure is 6·6 per 1,000. Again I would warn the House not to place too much reliance on figures for a few years when the numbers are small and, therefore, the percentages might be misleading.
One figure I do accept is that amongst commissioned officers the cases of pulmonary tuberculosis are few and far between as compared with the artisans, who are the worst off. I can understand the position where the officer is concerned, because obviously he is going to have more cubic feet of air in his sleeping accommodation and elsewhere than would be available for some of the other personnel. But I only want to emphasise that the important thing is to see that no one is accepted who might infect anyone else. That means rejection in the first place. Secondly, we ought to have an assurance, which I am sure we can get, that everybody in the Navy, whether at home or abroad, should be able to receive the benefit of mass radiography, say once a year. I have a suspicion that that is probably what the Navy aims at, and it is a desirable thing in the circumstances.
One of the other reasons I want to see the reports printed again is the type of remarkable information that they give. For example, a hundred years ago, whereas the death rate per thousand from all causes was, say, 15, disease accounted for 12 of that number. In 1914, when war started, and ships went on active service and casualties were being caused, deaths had risen to 37 from all causes; but, disease accounted for only 2½, which shows the enormous progress made in only about a hundred years. So it was disease rather than casualties which slew our men. Now, I suppose, the figure would be very low, and I can only guess because I have not the figures.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) made reference to the fact that there must be something wrong if we get these cases of minor sabotage. There is another index—the number of suicides. In 1935 there were 13 suicides. There are no figures for 1936, but such figures as we have are important, and we should ask, "Why does this sort of thing happen?" We are only able to guess, but we should try to get the information to

see if we can solve the problem which causes it.
Lastly, I have noticed that fatal accidents in the Royal Navy, out of action, are nearly always associated with motor cycles or pedal cycles or falling over cliffs. In fact, out of a total of 16 in one year, seven deaths were due to motor cycle accidents; one was due to a fall from a train, one a fall off a balcony, and one was associated with a pedal cycle. If the Royal Navy can look after its personnel so well that men have to come to land and fall off motor cycles in order to become injured, there is much to be said for the Royal Navy.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: The hour is late, and other hon. Members wish to speak and I shall, therefore, not give all the pearls of wisdom which I had prepared. I shall be brief and deal only with a very cold subject, the Arctic Circle. The Soviet Government and the United States are making tremendous preparations in the area of the North Pole; the United States have established an air base at Thule, and the Canadian Government are commissioning an icebreaker for service with their Navy in the Arctic, and the Soviet is not inactive.
The reason is obvious. The North Pole provides the shortest line of communications between the Soviet and the United States' areas of production, and in the event of a future war, that will be the scene of interception of atomic bombers and of parachutists, as well as commerce raiders, and of submarines skirting the ice cap at full speed on their way to the trade routes, or seeking shelter under the ice blocks from their pursuers.
As one of the great Powers, have we the ships to act in the Arctic Circle? I should like to ask if we could commission a vessel to operate there and give a continuance of the training which, hitherto, has been available only to a limited number of naval officers.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Like the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Hamilton Kerr), I am conscious of the lateness of the hour and of the number of hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, but we are discussing the expenditure of £400 million, and when we have expenditure of that magnitude to discuss for civil purposes


we generally spend several days, either consecutively or spread throughout the year, and it therefore seems to me that, despite the lateness of the hour, we cannot escape from the responsibility of giving the closest examination to these Estimates.
This is the first time I have ventured to take part in a debate on the Navy and, unlike hon. Members on both sides of the House who have preceded me, I have little direct qualification for doing so, unless it be the qualification that I was born in the shadows of the walls of Portsmouth Dockyard and spent the early years of my life falling into Portsmouth harbour from the green, slimy rocks which hon. Members will have observed as they have gone to catch a train from Portsmouth harbour station or the ferry across to Gosport. As a result of that experience, while I have almost certainly spent less time on the surface of Portsmouth harbour than many hon. Members, I venture to think that I have spent a great deal more time under the surface there than almost anyone else present.
Another and more serious reason why I venture to intervene in the debate is. that the Estimates cover not merely a righting Service. They cover the expenditure of a large-scale administrative and industrial organisation; indeed, during the debate I have heard a great many contributions which have not been concerned with the truly Service element of the Estimates. It is on that aspect that I may claim to give the House the benefit of some experience, and certainly on that subject that I may fairly claim the right to ask for some further explanation from the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary than is given in the Estimates themselves, which are not always clear.
The First Lord published his book of 319 pages, which costs 10s., and presumably he published it in order that somebody should read it. I cannot believe that he published it in the hope and expectation that nobody would read it, and if he published it so that somebody should read it, presumably it was in the hope and expectation that those who read it would do so with a fair degree of intelligence; and that if they did that they would find amongst the many thousands of words and the tens of thousands of figures something which they would be bound to query.
Before I go into the Estimates in detail, there are one or two points raised by previous speakers to which I wish to refer. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) made some play on a point which was new to me and which I thought extremely valuable, in fact, it rather horrified me when he sought to compare the organisation with what is done in an organisation similar to the Royal Dockyards but outside the control of the Admiralty. He told us that an admiral in charge of an organisation is authorised to spend during the course of a year, on his own responsibility, only a derisory amount.
I find it difficult to see how anybody could justify that, and I find it even more difficult to see how it could be justified by any member of the party at present forming the Government which, after all, has always argued, in respect of almost every piece of large-scale organisation, that what we want is the maximum amount of decentralisation and devolution away from the centre to the people carrying out the executive action on the perimeter. I have known hon. Members, for example, to say of the National Coal Board, which is a large-scale organisation about the size of the Royal Navy. that it is monstrous that the people out in the areas should be able to spend no money off their own bat without consulting the great central bureaucracy in London.
But people in those areas can spend £100,000 a year on their own bat without consulting the people in London. Here we have the head of an enormous industrial enterprise, for after all that is what the Portsmouth, Devonport and other dockyards are, a man who is highly paid, and quite rightly highly paid as we see from the Votes, who is not given as much power to make expenditure on his own account as the manager of a branch shoe shop in one of the chain shop companies. I should have thought that the First Lord would have been losing some of his best people who run the naval dockyards to Wool-worth's and Marks and Spencer's, not because they could get a more thrilling job, but because they could get a job which would enable them to do something on their own account.
Another thing which horrified me was the revelation of war-time experiences by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the


Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard), who was complaining that people who have to use apparatus are not consulted by those who design or instal it on a ship. The hon. Gentleman said that they were forced to take a piece of apparatus, he quite rightly did not describe what it was, which all the officers and gunnery crews knew to be totally unsuitable. What they did to instal it at one port, sail to another port and jettison it. That in itself is a wasteful way of settling a difference of opinion between the planners at the centre and the executives at the perimeter.
It shows a breakdown in communications and a total lack of consultation between those designing the apparatus and those who have to use it. We know that all sorts of queer things happen in war-time, but I should like an assurance from the First Lord that people who serve in Her Majesty's ships who are required by his technical officers to use some piece of apparatus are asked their opinion of it before it is installed, and I hope that if there is some difference of opinion between the technicians and executives they have some better way of settling it than by taking a piece of apparatus and throwing it into the sea.
There is one point in the First Lord's Explanatory Statement which accompanies the Estimates to which I would like to refer. Hon. Members have already pointed out that this statement is considerably less informative than the parallel statements explanatory of Estimates of the other Services. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) complained, and two hon. and gallant Gentlemen speaking from the other side of the House, have complained, that here is a statement about the work of the Navy in the immediate future which does not even set out what the tasks are that the Navy will have to carry out. It is a Statement which purports to be for a purpose without describing what that purpose is.
That is not the only respect in which the Statement is highly uninformative. Almost all the observations it contains concern matters about which the Board of Admiralty are clearly not too happy, and are statements designed by their wording to obscure rather than to reveal

information. For instance, in the section dealing with new constructions, what is to be made of this statement?
Progress on the frigates, minesweepers, seaward defence boats, and fast patrol boats has been less rapid than was hoped, partly owing to production difficulties …
How much less rapid? By how much have the production plans fallen short? What were the production difficulties that emerged in execution of the programmes of new construction? To what extent could those difficulties have been foreseen? Why, to that extent, were they not foreseen?
Here I make a point that I ventured to make when we were discussing the Air Estimates the other day—if day it was. Surely this is a confession, though not made in the explicit terms that the Secretary of State for Air or the Secretary of State for War would have been willing to have made it, of the failure of the planners, the so-called planners, who think that because they provide for expenditure in financial terms they are automatically providing the men, the machines, the materials and the facilities which will turn sterling values on a piece of paper into cold, hard actualities.
We see from these confessions of failure, whether explicitly announced like those of the Secretary of State for Air, or cryptically like those of the First Lord, who is not only more modest than his colleagues about his achievements but also more modest about his failures, the absolute justification of those who have said over the last few years that defence expenditure and the planning of defence expenditure has been done too much on a sterling basis and not on a physical basis, and, because of that, has been unrelated to the capacity of the nation to carry it out.
I turn to this formidable book of 319 pages of which, as I have said, I have read all the text, and its admirable figures. As a result of that examination I am afraid I have either to make observations upon or ask for further information about a dozen or so points of detail which, I recognise at once—and I apologise to the First Lord for it—are rather Committee points than points for a general debate. However, we discovered the other night, when we were debating the Estimates for a sister Service, that when we got to the Committee stage, we were not allowed to have it, and


those of us who had reserved one or two specific points to ask questions about on the Votes were debarred from putting those questions. So I am afraid I have no alternative but to put my Committee points now in the general debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order. I would remind the hon. Member that in a general debate it is not in order to put Committee points.

Mr. Tom Driberg: Committee points, metaphorically speaking.

Mr. Mikardo: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we were advised in the contrary sense the other night. The term "Committee point" is a conventional one. It is a subjective term. I do not believe that the Standing Orders contain any definition of "Committee points." I shall, therefore, if it will put me in better grace with you, which is a state of affairs I always seek to attain, withdraw the expression "Committee points" and substitute for it "points of detail." I wish, therefore, to take up with the First Lord—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that, according to the practice of the House and the rules of the House, points of detail, if Committee points, are not in order in a general debate.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on this important point? We must have regard here to the new procedure to which we have been subjected in recent years. Is it in order in this general debate to raise any question that arises in the Estimates? Is that in order in this debate or not?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If they are general points, yes; but I understood the hon. Member to say that it was his intention to raise points now which he could raise only in Committee. That would not be in order. He can, however, raise any question on the Estimates within the general debate.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order. Earlier in the proceedings I referred to certain matters in Vote 10 when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair. He did not call me to order. Presumably, my hon. Friend would be entitled to do what I did.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not object to that. I objected to the phrase of the hon. Gentleman that he intended to raise Committee points.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend would be entitled to refer to a point on a certain Vote, which was exactly the procedure I followed earlier.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, that would be in order because this is a general debate, but he ought not to raise Committee points.

Mr. Mikardo: I am very grateful for what you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The position is now absolutely clear. It is perfectly in order for anybody to raise any question on any figure which is contained in the Estimates. So long as that is clear, I do not mind whether the raising of any question on any figure contained in the Estimates is called a general point or a Committee point. I am content to leave the phraseology to anybody with a taste for phraseology. I want to get on with the figures.
The first comment I want to make— and this is certainly a general point because it runs right through the whole of the Estimates—is that here, as in the Estimates which we examined the other day, there is a fantastic amount of work done purely for the purposes of inter-Departmental charges. I beg the First Lord, as I begged the Under-Secretary of State for Air the other day, to have a look at this matter and to find out how many clerks, accounting officers and senior accounting officers and the like he is employing merely to make charges upon some other Department of the Government, or merely to check charges made on him by some other Government Department and to pay them, or to issue some voucher in payment of them.
It is quite staggering. There are certainly not fewer than 100 such examples, there may be more than 200—I did not count the odd 100 or so. Clearly, a great deal of accounting work is done for no purpose other than that of ensuring that money is taken out of one compartment of the public purse and placed in another. We really cannot afford the luxury of using the accounting and clerical staff for that purpose. Indeed, with regard to the Navy Estimates, the position seems to be worse than is the case in the other


Services. Sometimes there is no charge between Departments, sometimes the charge is done on an approximating basis, about which nobody could complain, and sometimes the charge is done on a detailed basis, which is bound to take a lot of work; and in respect of the Navy Estimates the third classification is the one most common.
Over and over again, there are appropriations-in-aid which consist of charges on other Government Departments that are made up of labour plus oncosts. You may be aware, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that not even the most eminent accountants have yet been able to agree on a definition of what constitutes an oncost. You may be aware that in all accounting the calculation of oncosts is the most complicated and the most time-taking and in most respects the most wasteful part of the whole process.
I do think it is silly, if a Royal Dockyard does a very good job for some other Government Department or the Air Force, or one of the civilian Departments, to have someone clock on and off precisely, so as to get a precise labour cost, and then for someone to sit down and figure out the allocation of Departmental and overall on costs on to that job card— and for what purpose? So that the Army can have a charge of x pounds and the Navy an appropriation-in-aid of x pounds, which, so far as the public purse is concerned, precisely cancel each other out.
What I do not understand is that sometimes the Services can be quite sensible on this matter. If they can be sensible sometimes I do not understand why they cannot be sensible always. For example, Vote 11, Subhead A, deals with travelling expenses and passage expenses of naval and civil personnel, and that is done on a capitation rate. It is clearly the quick and simple way of effecting the charge without making too heavy weather of the matter.
An even better example is contained in the case of interchange of medical treatment between the three Services, because an explanatory note on Vote 3 says that in pursuance of a policy of co-ordination to promote the most economical use of the hospitals of the three Services, naval hospitals undertake the treatment of Army and Air Force patients; similarly hospital treatment for naval personnel is

undertaken at Army and Air Force hospitals on certain stations; no financial adjustment is made between the three Services for such patients. Here is a case where they have agreed to let the swings and the roundabouts look after themselves.
Yet there is a startling contrast in another part of the Estimate, regarding the teaching and training carried out by one Service for another, in the precise charges made by one Service on another for the training work carried out. I am bound to say that I cannot understand the justification for that. If the Royal Air Force looks after the body of a naval rating it does so without charging the Admiralty for it. If it looks after the mind of a naval rating then it gets out a proper invoice, labour charges, oncosts and the rest of it, and effects a charge from one Service Department to another.
Where is the justification for it, and the logic of it? It means a double transaction, one in each Service, with two people at either end doing in reverse, or rather two images doing symmetrically identical operations, except that what is a credit to one is a debit to the other, and vice versa, no doubt ringing each other up on the long-distance telephone because they cannot make their totals coincide.
I pass from that to another detailed point—I must not call it a Committee point—which is concerned with the statement of the total estimated expenditure for the naval service. This is on page 6 of this formidable document, and under the heading "Civil Estimates" there is:
Estimated expenditure under—
Class III. Vote 13, Law charges, England,
and
Vote 22, Law charges and courts of law, Scotland.
From the figures provided not merely of the Estimate but of the expenditure for last year, it seems that the Admiralty will spend somewhat more on law charges in England in the coming year than in the past, but in Scotland rather more than two-and-a-half times as much in the coming year as in the past year.
I see the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) looking very curious about this. He doubtless wants to know, as I do, why it is forecast that there is to be some increase in litigation


on the part of the Royal Navy during the coming year. Why that increase in litigation should break out more in respect of Scotland than it does in respect of England, I do not know. I can hazard all sorts of guesses about it which are as uninformed as they are amusing, but I would not venture to put them before the House. I only ask for information on the subject.
On the next page of the Estimates there is a note which seems to me to cover a matter of the very highest importance. It reads:
Local procurement in Germany. The Navy's local requirements in Germany are obtained generally at the expense of the German Federal Government. No provision is therefore made in the Estimates for these requirements.
It may, however, be necessary by Supplementary Estimate or other means later in the financial year to make some provision for these requirements, because, of course, if the E.D.C. Treaty and the Bonn Contractual Agreements come into operation, the German Federal Government will cease to bear the charges of the Navy's local requirements in Germany, and the First Lord will have to find the money for those requirements himself.
Of course, I do not blame him for making no provision in these Estimates for those requirements because he has no method of knowing when those Agreements will come into force, and whether they will come into force during the year for which he is estimating, or at any time after that. But I am quite sure that his Department has calculated what would be the annual expenditure in hard currency —because it will have to be paid in hard currency—which will fall upon the Department annually or monthly from the time that the E.D.C. Treaty and the Bonn Agreements come into force.
I do not know whether this a large or a small amount, and I should very much like to know. I hope I am not asking too much when I ask the hon. Gentleman who is to reply if he can give us any sort of estimate of the monthly or annual charge which will have to be added to these Estimates for the cost of local requirements in Germany from the time that the Treaty and the Agreements come into force, and when the Admiralty will have to bear this cost itself.
I should think that when we get this information we shall find that those

charges in respect of the Navy will be much lower than those in respect of either the Army or the Royal Air Force, but they will doubtless still be a significant amount. As I have already observed, they are an amount which we shall not be able to pay in sterling, but shall have to pay in currency which is not only hard, but is becoming increasingly hard.
This ought to give the House some food for reflection when it thinks about expenditure on the Services and other things during the forthcoming year. It seems that we do not always take into account the direct economic effect of the change in the relationships between our Armed Forces and those of other countries which will flow from the ratification of the E.D.C. Treaty and the Bonn Contractual Agreements. It is sometimes argued that following their ratification we shall get some advantage for British industry because one of our competitors will be loaded with arms costs with which it is not at present loaded. But against that we have to set the factor that services which are at present needed for our three Services in Germany and which are paid for by the Germans will have to be paid for in hard currency out of our own resources.
On Vote 5, Subhead H—"Further education and vocational training"— there is a point which appears to me to be anomalous, and I should be grateful for some explanation. It seems to me that in general the provision which is made by the Navy for further education and vocational training is not only fair, but might reasonably be described as generous. The only thing I would say about it in general terms is that I am sure that the Government spokesman listened with sympathy, as, I believe, we all did, to the plea of the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) for better post-service employment opportunities for ex-naval personnel.
The First Lord ought to be invited to consider whether, in the planning of this further education and vocational training, though ought not to be given, not merely to vocational training for vocation within the Service, but to vocational training for a parallel vocation outside the Service after a man has ceased his Service life. Having said that on the general point, there is a small anomaly, about which I should like information,


in respect of the paragraph which says:
For ratings in small ships for whom organised educational provision is intermittent and for those wishing to study at an advanced level, a wide range of Forces correspondence courses is available. A nominal fee is charged and this is included in Subhead Z, Appropriations in Aid.
I cannot see why this should be so.
If a man is serving at a shore station or in a large ship, where organised educational provision is regular, he can get a direct course in a wide range of subjects, which are set out towards the top of page 61 of the Estimates; it is an excellent range of subjects. A man can get what appears to be, on the evidence of this document, a very good course with direct verbal teaching, entirely at the expense of the Admiralty. But if he happens to draw a blank in the ballot and is put into a small ship in some remote out-of-the-way place, not because he asked for it—a ship in which the Admiralty, through no fault of his, even if through no fault of the Admiralty, can only provide intermittent training—and he still wants to continue the course which he started in his shore establishment or his previous ship, he has to pay in order to do it. Where is the logic and the sense of that? I hope I am not too much troubling the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary if I ask for some explanation.
Now, I turn to Vote 8, to which the attention of the House was directed from the Government Front Bench early in the proceedings; so I certainly cannot be trespassing on any rules of order if I refer to it also. Section III of Vote 8 concerns contract work, and Subhead A of that section concerns ships and aircraft. The subhead, as the text says, also covers the cost of aircraft and repairs to aircraft by contract.
The total amount for aircraft, including repairs, is of the order of £24,500,000, a very substantial amount and nearly 50 per cent, greater than the amount for the same item in the previous year. But it is not broken down as between purchase and repairs, and there seems to be no sensible reason why it should not be so broken down. There are a number of points in this Vote in which the Admiralty has not gone as far as it could reasonably be expected to go in breaking down global figures of the sub-divisions. This is true not merely of sterling figures, such as

those I have quoted, but also of figures of strength, which it will be more appropriate to discuss later.
How much of this £24,628,000 is for aircraft and how much is for repairs to aircraft by contract? How much of the repairs to aircraft by contract goes to establishments owned and operated either directly by the Government or by some public institution? We were told in a debate yesterday that there is an aircraft repair and maintenance base owned by British European Airways Corporation the future of which is threatened because the work is insufficient or is being diverted from it. I should like to know whether anything has been done to investigate whether some of these repairs to aircraft by contract can be diverted to that base.
We were also told yesterday of an engine and propeller repair centre tucked away in a comparatively safe strategic position, in which redundancy is being declared. Clearly that station would, on all sorts of grounds, welcome doing work for the Fleet Air Arm, and I should like to know whether any investigation has been made of the possibilities of putting into that repair factory any of the work of repairs to aircraft by contract covered by Subhead A of Section III of Vote 8. I am sorry to ask all these questions in such a long string, but it is quite clear that this is the only opportunity for us to do so, and I hope I may be forgiven.
I was interested to read in the explanatory note to Subhead B of Part I of Vote 10, on page 43, that money is appropriated by the right hon. Gentleman for, amongst other things, a contribution towards the cost of a new joint Services headquarters. This is under a classification headed "Workshops and Technical Buildings," and it would appear from this that the three Services together are proposing to operate a joint establishment for technical work which can be done usefully in common between the three Services.
I must confess that this is the first time I had heard of this intention to operate this new joint Services headquarters for technical purposes. I speak subject to correction, but I rather fancy that this is the first time the House has been informed of this intention. Primq facie I think it is a sensible suggestion. I have always felt, as a layman, that there were many things for joint activity be-


tween the three Services instead of each keeping itself strictly to itself for no better reason than that of prestige and for reasons of "empire building."
I am quite sure there is a good deal more room than is being exploited at the moment for joint requisitioning, joint purchasing and joint storekeeping of certain types of common stores between the three Services. If this new joint Services headquarters under "Workshops and Technical Buildings" is a first break in the sacred brick wall built up by each of the Service Departments around itself, then I am sure the whole House will welcome it. But we should like to know more about it, including the scope of work which it is proposed to carry out at these headquarters, and who is to administer it. Is it to be administered by the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff? Is it to be administered, as one would expect it to be in logic, by the Ministry of Defence?
I recall that when the Ministry of Defence was established, one of the main justifications for setting it up was there were many executive functions common to all three Services which the Ministry could in some cases co-ordinate and in some cases carry out for them. I have more than a shrinking suspicion that that function has not been carried out in any significant degree at all. If the Ministry of Defence is not operating this joint service, I shall ask—although I know it is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman who will be able to answer it—why it has not been carrying out this duty.
On page 155 of the Navy Estimates there are explanatory notes on a number of subheads commencing with "Allowances to ministers of religion," and going on to
Fees and gratuities for special services, etc.,"Loss by exchange, etc.," "Lighthouses, etc.," and "Instruction of Nava‡ personnel at outside establishments.
There are four purposes for which the money is asked under
Fees and gratuities for special services, etc.,
and the second of these reads as follows:
Rewards to (a) officers and men of the fleet, and (b) civilian staff, for original proposals of value.
This is similar to suggestion schemes in civilian industry, and I am wondering to what extent the Admiralty has endeavoured to benefit from the experience of the operation of these schemes.
These schemes, when first introduced, were found to be of small and diminishing value until people got around to considering why it was that they did not produce in theory what they ought to produce, and then they found that there were substantial limitations in two directions, first, in the direction of relating the reward to the financial benefit produced by the idea; and, second, in the direction of the democratising of the decision-making body, who decided whether a suggestion was valuable or not.
One of the surest ways of securing that people will stop bringing forward ideas is to give them the impression that when they bring an idea forward it is dealt with arbitrarily by one man, or at the most by two or three, without proper consideration being given to the matter. During the course of our debate one hon. and gallant Gentleman who served in the Royal Navy quoted an instance of a substantial change being made in the equipment of a ship in which he served, and which he said resulted in a considerable sum of money being saved. The person principally concerned was given an award of £5.
I do not know what a substantial sum of money means in that connotation, but I judged from the description which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave that he was thinking of something of the order of £30,000, £40,000, £50,000 or even £100,000. If it was of that order, then the person who got an award of £5 would feel sour. Giving an award of £5 is worse than giving no reward at all, because if no award is given then the man can say that he did it out of love for the Service, and he gets a word of praise from his commanding officer. But once the reward is placed on a financial basis, a man is going to be soured if he is given a derisory award like £5.
So, I should like to know how many of these ideas come forward in the course of a year, and by what sort of criterion people judge what these rewards shall be in relation to the financial or other saving accruing to the Service. Third, on what sort of validity is the award to be judged? If it is the case, as seems to be apparent from the observations of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) that the technicians are so much out of touch with conditions that a ship has to call in at the first harbour to get rid of equipment, then it is no com-


pliment to those who are supposed to judge fairly the ideas of the chaps who are doing the job. The next subhead is one which I was surprised and, indeed, horrified to discover. It is called, "Loss by exchange, etc.", and I find that there was provided last year for this contingency £5,000; this year, it is again £5,000, and the explanation is that this subhead bears a net loss in exchange due to dealing in foreign currencies. I cannot, however much I try, think why the Admiralty should deal in foreign currencies at all. But, suppose that it does. Why does it always budget for a loss?
The First Lord has sitting behind him a most powerful array of hon. Members who have had day-to-day experience in the City, and who know all about these wonderful mysteries of dealing in commodities and foreign exchange. Why should he not get some advice from his hon. Friends so that he can arrange to reach a position whereby, if he sometimes makes a loss, he may also sometimes make a profit? It seems to me arrant defeatism to say that because one swops one currency for another one must always lose a hundred pounds a week in so doing.
I must pass on and if hon. Members opposite are murmuring, I would point out that we are dealing with £400 million. I will pass over the temptation to ask whether the provision made for the cost of removal of certain wrecks obstructing navigation refers to physical things or to human things, and come instead to asking a question about Vote 12. This concerns the expenditure of the Admiralty Office, and on Subhead A. "Salaries, wages, etc.", I find that I am delighted in being able to congratulate the First Lord and ask him only to convey to his opposite numbers in the other two Services the expertness which, in this particular matter, he has managed to develop.
For, in the shorthand and typing staff at the Admiralty, there are two controllers and nine superintendents dealing with more than 800 shorthand typists and typists. Superintendents seem deliberately to be put with other people so that one will not know how many of each there are, but allowing for this piece of security work, it look as though the ratio of supervisory to staff grades is much better in the Admiralty than in some

other Departments. If that is so, I ask the First Lord to pass on to his colleagues whatever it is that he has discovered which makes him more efficient in this respect than they are.
Under Vote 12, Subhead A, I should be glad if the First Lord would tell me what are chief paper keepers, senior paper keepers and paper keepers, of which there are several hundreds employed by the Admiralty. I managed either to recognise or to find some understandable explanation for every other vocational description in the whole of the 319 pages. Why do not these people appear in other Service Departments or other Departments of the Government? What sort of papers do they keep? How do they keep them? Are they just chief filing clerks, senior filing clerks and filing clerks, because, if they are, why are they not so called? Doubtless they were called chief paper keepers in the days of Lord Nelson, but one or two things ought to have changed since then. If they are not filing clerks but keepers of cigarette papers or of other papers, perhaps we may be told precisely what it is that they keep.
I desire to raise one or two points of detail which come out of the Programmes and Appendices, where there are some of the most interesting figures in the whole Report, if one only takes the trouble to look them up. I refer, first of all, to the statement showing the probable cost in 1953–54 and the estimated cost in 1954–55 of new construction in the table which is given on pages 224–5. I am particularly interested to compare, between the two years, the relation between direct charges, on the one hand, and oncosts and services on the other hand; or, in other words, the percentage of the total cost represented by oncosts and services.
During the day, not unnaturally, we have heard about efficiency in the operation of the Navy, and one of the ways, outside these Services, in which in recent years we have sought to improve efficiency is by reducing the percentage of oncosts. Here the percentage of oncosts is estimated to be larger during the coming year than during the past year. What is especially interesting is that this slight increase in the overall figure comes about notwithstanding a significant fall in the figure for dockyard-built ships.
It is in respect of contract-built ships that the percentage of total costs represented by oncosts and services has risen by one-ninth, and I wonder whether this does not indicate some relaxation in the controls which the Admiralty costing department normally exercises over contractors, not only about costs in general but about oncosts in particular. I want an assurance on the matter, because in the recent past we have had only too many bitter experiences to confirm the fact that if these controls are relaxed in the least, we find contractors' costs and especially, in some cases, their oncosts, running away with them.
The House will be glad to learn that I have only three further points to make, and I shall try to dispose of them very quickly. The first of these concerns marriage allowance. I observe on page 258 in Appendix I that marriage allowances are provided for officers. I will not say, because I am not competent to do so, whether these allowances are adequate, or fair, or what. But what strikes me as strange is that they vary according to the age of each officer, and that officers aged 25 years and over rank for rank get much more generous allowances than married officers under the age of 25.
I cannot see why this distinction should be drawn at all. There are vast differentiations in the rates of pay and allowances which can always be justified in respect of rank. They are differentiations because of greater ability in the handling of the job, and greater responsibility exercised in the handling of the job. But if one takes rank for rank, station for station and circumstance for circumstance how can one justify paying a different allowance for a lieutenant-commander or a commander below a certain age and above a certain age?

Mr. Beverley Baxter: That is an important point which the hon. Gentleman has finally reached. Does he not think that the authorities in the Admiralty have possibly, in their wisdom, thought it wise not to encourage men to marry at too young an age? That seems to me a sensible idea that they should wait until they are 25, and not marry at too early an age.

Mr. Mikardo: That is precisely the conclusion I had reached and which I was about to announce when the hon. Gentleman, with the prescience for which he is famous, foresaw what I was about to say, and added to the time I was taking by interrupting to say it for me.
If the Admiralty thinks that it ought to encourage people not to marry at too young an age it ought to mind its own business. This is a hangover of the days when not only did the Admiralty discourage young officers from marrying, but forbade them, and thereby encouraged, and indeed created, if records are to be believed, a great many unofficial and improper liaisons. It is no business of an employer, Service of civilian, whether an employee gets married at 23 years of age or waits for another two or three years. I was married before I was 25, and I should not have allowed any employer to tell me I had to wait. The Admiralty is carrying out the functions of an employer and paying marriage allowance, and should not have the right to say at what age a man should get married. I am sorry I have been so long, but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southgate (Mr. Baxter) will pop in at the end of a debate or speech. I know he is trying to be helpful, but one day he will learn which way it is that is paved with good intentions.
The next matter I wish to refer to is a parallel to one which I raised on the Air Estimates. It is on the pay of apprentices, which is dealt with at the bottom of page 260. I shall not repeat in detail what I said about the same point on the Air Estimates, because although the hon. Gentleman was doubtless tucked up warmly in bed when I made those observations he may have had them drawn to his attention since, but I want to say briefly that if the First Lord is having any difficulty in the recruitment of apprentices he had better have a look at the pay scales, which may have borne a relation in the past to those of employers competing for the services of apprentices but will not do so in the very near future.
I know because I went to a school from which a great many of those apprentices come. I know that in the past there was a good supply of boys from there, and perhaps it is continuing


in the present. If the hon. Gentleman wants to attract people from civilian industry he must consider the pay rates of the apprentices, and also the pay rates as they are related to age groups.
I observe on page 263 that among the allowances for men there is an allowance for the nursing of tuberculous patients at a daily rate of sixpence. I cannot find, after the most careful scrutiny of the Estimates, any such allowance for officers, including officers of the Nursing Reserve. Do not officers get the same allowance, too? If not, why not? I know there is a considerable difference of opinion about whether there is additional danger incurred in nursing tuberculous patients. When I once raised with another Service Minister the fact that officers were paid six times as much additional allowance for nursing tuberculous patients as ratings I was told that there was no extra danger anyway.
However, the hon. Gentleman and his Service colleagues cannot have it both ways. If there is no extra danger, there is nothing to pay for, and if there is pay, there should be fair payment all round. Therefore, I ask, whether there is an allowance for officers under this head, and for the Nursing Reserve? If so, how much is it, and if it is different from the sixpence a day rate for the men, what is the difference?
I apologise once more for having taken so long and having covered so many points, a procedure into which I was forced by the new practice under which Vote A cannot be discussed at all, and by which one is compelled somewhat unsatisfactorily to crowd into a speech in the general debate all sorts of points of detail which, for reasons that the House well knows, I had better not call Committee points, even if they are.

1.29 a.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) will not expect me to go into the subjects which he has raised in a rather prolonged way. I feel that my constituents are much happier with what my right hon. Friend has accomplished during the last year than the hon. Gentleman appears to be. There is considerable satisfaction in the Chatham Dockyard area, most of which is in my con-

stituency, and among the naval personnel as well.
We have all been very seriously concerned at the deterioration in the manpower position in the Navy, and there is general acclamation for the steps announced in an effort to restore the situation. I, too, was very pleased to hear that measures are to be put in hand to improve the efficiency of the dockyards, but I was concerned at that part of the debate which took place on the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), when the suggestion was made that more of the naval shipping requirements should be fulfilled by private yards. I urge upon my right hon. Friend the need for ensuring that the Royal naval dockyards are fully occupied.
All those who follow these debates, and especially those who represent dockyard constituencies, realise that there has been considerable apprehension for quite a time about the future of the dockyards. Indeed, suggestions were recently made in my constituency that it was the intention of the Government to close down Chatham Dockyard. My right hon. Friend has given the best possible reply to those rumours by announcing, first, that the Chatham naval barracks are to be modernised, and, second, that there is a scheme for the modernisation and improvement of the dockyards. This is not before time. Those who represent dockyard constituencies know that much of the machinery, plant and workshop accommodation is in a shocking state.
I share the view expressed from both sides of the House about the announcement by the Admiralty that holidays are to be taken in one period of two weeks this year. I understand that this is to be an experiment, but hon. Members, and certainly dockyard personnel and business interests in the towns concerned, are entitled to know what influenced the Admiralty in arriving at this decision, which seems to cut across the avowed intention of the Government to press generally for staggered holidays. That was the proposal of the Labour Government, as well as the present Government. There must have been strong reasons for this action. I hope that we shall be given more information, and an assurance that if the economies aimed at are not achieved there will be a return to staggered holidays next year.
I wish to deal with two other questions. At this time of the year one is always approached by men in the Navy with grievances. The first, I believe, is rather an old chestnut. It is the question of warrant officer ranks in the Navy. I have been informed that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction at the fact that the Navy has no rank comparable to warrant officer 1 and warrant officer 2 in the Army and Air Force. I am told that this has been a bone of serious contention for some time and that representations have been made, but no announcement has been made in response to the repeated representations made by senior ratings in the Navy. Perhaps this will afford an opportunity to my hon. Friend to say whether any proposal can be made about this matter for the future.
Then I have had another matter raised with me, which is a fairly narrow point, but it is a question of what appears to be an injustice. In the Admiralty's message of 2nd March, 1954, R.N.V.R. instructors were shown as being ineligible for the increases in pay announced recently by my hon. Friend. The number of men affected comprise only about 200. Although it was stated that at the moment these men were not eligible for an increase, it was also stated that the matter of an increase in pay for them was under consideration.
I shall be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will advise me why it was stated that they were ineligible for increases at the time, why their pay position was under consideration and whether that consideration has now been given and they are to receive an increase in their pay, with other members of the Forces, because according to R.N.V.R. Regulations of 14th July, 1953, dealing with the conditions of Service pay, while serving N.C.S. engagement instructors will receive full active service rates of pay and allowances and will not draw pensions, on completion of their engagements their pensions would be subject to increase in respect of additional service beyond the normal period of 22 years' pensionable service.
Where active ratings are drafted as instructors, on being pensioned they will, if retained for further duty as instructors execute N.C.S. engagement and be paid the full active service rates of pay and allowances. It does seem to me that this was fairly clear. Those men were to re-

ceive the full active service rates of pay. That was part of their engagement, and it is hardly to be wondered at that they are seriously concerned if they are now to be informed that they are ineligible for the present increases, and then, later in the Admiralty signal, that their position is under consideration. Though this may affect only about 200 men, I do hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will tonight remove the concern that they are undergoing at the moment as they do feel that exclusion from benefits promulgated in the White Paper would constitute a breach of their agreements.
I have been rather concerned over the question of the medical services in the Royal Navy, though not with regard to the present hospital and medical services in the Fleet, because I understand that they are excellent. Indeed I can assure the House that the medical facilities and treatment at the Royal Naval Hospital, Chatham, compare very favourably with those at any other Service hospital or any civilian hospital.
I am concerned about the question of money being made available for medical research. I understand that no sum of money is allocated to the Navy for medical research. I do not know whether the same applies to the Army and to the Royal Air Force, but it seems to me that, at a time when new weapons are being developed and when there is an enormous increase in the speed of aircraft; when rapid development is taking place concerning submarines that can stay submerged for many days, and because secrecy must be maintained about these and other modern weapons and their effect upon the human frame, medical research must very largely be carried out in secrecy. It seems to me, therefore, that the best manner in which investigations can be carried out by medical teams is by recruiting to the Forces men capable of undertaking the research, and by providing the necessary money for the employment of such men. Research could be carried out under terms of secrecy such as can be imposed only upon members of Her Majesty's Forces.
There is also the question of the facilities for carrying on the research. Many of the weapons from which the need for research would spring would be in the hands of the other Services and would be used by them. Therefore, I ask my


right hon. Friend not only to look into the question of allocating money to the Navy for medical research, but also to look into the matter in association with the chiefs-of-staff of the other Services. I do feel that this is a subject that requires investigation.

1.43 a.m.

Mr. W. Nally: This House is rightly regarded by democratic assemblies throughout the world as the Mother of Parliaments, but that does not necessarily prevent her from behaving like a silly old fool. We are having at the moment, and we have had before on Service Estimates, this ridiculous procedure. We begin our work on the debate on the Estimates at four o'clock in the afternoon, and at a quarter to two in the morning we listen to a long speech by an hon. Member opposite who quite properly presents to the House a whole variety of technical questions and issues to which he is entitled to have an answer from the Government.
The Government Front Bench looks slightly bored throughout the whole procedure, and takes no notes that matter. I am a reporter of some experience and I should be very happy to go outside and have a competition with right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench concerning the number of important points raised by the hon. Member in the last 10 minutes. I am perfectly certain that whoever else may be aware of them, the Government Front Bench is not. The reason for that is that we are discussing these quite vital matters at a quarter to two in the morning.
The point at issue is the Navy, and the Navy is vitally important—a matter of life and death to this country. No matter how eloquent the speech, no matter how important the points raised by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), no matter how precise and legitimate the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), what we have to face is that these points are being presented at half-past one and a quarter to two in the morning, as a consequence of which 95 per cent, of the intelligent men and women of these islands, whose regard and respect for the Navy is as great as anybody's in the House, will not be impressed a few hours from now by what points

were made by the hon. Member for Gillingham or what points were made by my hon. Friend.
The only thing that people will be impressed by is that Her Majesty's House of Commons, discussing serious Service Estimates on matters vital to the future of the country, was discussing them at half-past one and a quarter to two in the morning, when the majority of us are not at our best. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Certainly—and when, moreover, a large number of Members on both sides of the House with speeches to make, with knowledge to impart and experience to deploy in a Parliamentary discussion, have decided that once 11 o'clock is reached, neither the House nor anyone else is particularly interested in what they have to say.

Mr. Swingler: Oh, no. Is my hon. Friend aware that there are some Service Departments which take sufficient note of speeches made by hon. Members in the House that if the Minister who replies to the debate is unable to deal with the points, the Members concerned will receive replies by correspondence afterwards, as I can vouch for on many occasions in previous years?

Mr. Nally: It ought to be an elementary principle of good Parliamentary practice, as with courts of justice, that not only should justice be done, but that it should be made perfectly plain to the public that it is being done. If speeches have to be made at a quarter to two in the morning in order to get a letter from the Minister four days later saying that the point in a Member's speech has been dealt with, without the public or anybody else being fully aware of what was said and what was meant, I do not find in that an adequate defence for sitting here at this time.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that all the speeches that were made before 11 o'clock will receive such adequate publicity that the public will be able to form their own conclusions about what was said here?

Mr. Nally: It is not the publicity in which I am interested: it is the dignity. I am saying that if we are discussing Service Estimates, matters that affect


vitally the future and welfare not only of the country but of people serving in the Services, the time to discuss them is not a quarter to two in the morning but is 10.30 in the morning, when people are at their best and when the subject can be handled properly.
This is the third or fourth time in the House that I have protested about important and vital matters being discussed at this hour. I did so under the previous Government and I do so now. It is no excuse for alternate Governments to argue that the Opposition has always wasted the time. The trouble, from which the Service Estimates are the biggest sufferers, is that the elasticity always starts at the wrong end. We are all, one hopes, comparatively sane Members of Parliament. Is there anything to prevent our meeting to-morrow, by arrangement between the two sides, and having two days for the Service Estimates, beginning our discussions at 10.30 in the morning instead of at four o'clock in the afternoon, when many hon. Members have already done a considerable part of a hard day's work?
Are we to assume that the Navy is a proper subject to discuss at quarter to two in the morning, when there is not a company director on the benches opposite or a journalist on these benches who would dream of running an important conference at this hour of the morning? I have heard the greater part of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South and that of the hon. Member for Gillingham, who brought to the attention of the House a variety of points worthy of serious consideration. Although this ought to be the place, it is certainly not the time to discuss those important points, or even to ask the Minister, who presumably has got a hard day's work to do a few hours from now, to reply to them. But whose fault is that?
The fault is ours. If the Mother of Parliaments persists in this attitude that it is right and proper for us to discuss these important matters at this time of the morning, then all I can say is that the Mother of Parliaments will deserve what the British public now says about our late Sittings, that they are not only ridiculous, but childish.

1.52 a.m.

Brigadier Terence Clarke: I offer no apology for making a speech at this hour of the night. I represent the premier naval port, and in my constituency is the premier naval dockyard. I am sorry that we have to discuss this matter at this hour of the morning, but I believe that we might have been finished a lot earlier if everybody who wanted to contribute to the debate had done so in the way we on this side of the House have done.
First, I should like to draw the attention of the First Lord to the fact that he has done a very good thing in raising the pay of certain skilled and senior ratings to try and persuade them to stay in the Service for a longer time. I have been pressing that on the Government for a long time, but they have failed to understand the importance of competing with industry. These skilled men, who have knowledge of radar and other technical and electrical matters, have an enormous call on them from outside the Service, and the Navy has to compete with industry.
The second point I wish to make is that for too long men have had to go on long tours of overseas service.

Mr. Nally: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman forgive me a moment?

Brigadier Clarke: No. I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that I have sat here waiting for too long to agree now to be interrupted.
Members of Her Majesty's Forces have to go on long tours of duty overseas, and I should like to read a letter I received the other day from a senior petty officer:
Don't think I am a grouser. I have an excellent record and have recently been recommended for service in the Royal Yacht. I am leaving the Service at the first possible chance because my son will be two years old before I see him, and I spent many years away from home during the last war. A man can be kept on an overseas station for two years and nine months, which is too long to be separated from one's family.
I think everybody on both sides of the House will agree with that statement. The First Lord has now said that he will do his best to see that foreign service is reduced to one year. That will make a great difference to recruiting for the Navy and to keeping those already in the Navy in the Service.
I wish next to draw attention to posting. I get an enormous postbag every week on this subject, and repeatedly I am told that men have been posted overseas out of their turn. This may not prove to be the fact, and in a number of cases that I have investigated with the Admiralty, it has always given good reason why a man has to be posted overseas. In general, the Admiralty managed to convince me that men go overseas in their correct order. I think the Admiralty has not only got to see that postings are fair, but that they appear to be fair to these men posted overseas. I think it ought to be carefully explained to these men how their posting has been brought about, especially when they have only been posted Home for a few months and then find themselves once more going overseas and leaving their families.
The next point I want to make—and I have made it several times before— concerns the retirement of officers and the discharge by purchase of ratings. I think the Admiralty is foolish in withholding the privilege from officers of retiring and from ratings of buying their discharge. The Admiralty has the idea that if this were allowed there would be widespread departure from the Navy, but that would not be the case at all.
I know that until the First Lord spoke today there was no way of getting out of the Navy unless an officer said that he was going to stand for Parliament. But nowadays a naval officer cannot be a candidate until he has left the Navy, and if there is no way of leaving the Navy then an officer cannot be a candidate for Parliament. That has been rectified today. I know at least one officer who wanted to get out and stand for Parliament but he was not able to do so, and I am sure the First Lord would agree that that is not democratic.
I am sure there will not be any mass exodus because of the promise which my right hon. Friend gave today. I heard him give the promise in the House, and I took the trouble to go and read it on the tape machine. It sounded better in the House than it read on the tape machine. On the tape machine it said:
The scheme will necessarily be on a limited basis, as with the other Services.
I do not understand how it is to be limited "as with the other Services." As

far as I know a soldier or airman can get out, and I have not known discharge or retirement to be withheld in either of the other two Services. If the Admiralty limits the men leaving, I doubt whether what the First Lord has promised us today is going to be very good.
Then the tape message goes on to say:
Officers may retire at Admiralty discretion.
Personally, I would not be at all happy to leave the Admiralty to decide on that subject. I think that these men should be allowed to go out of the Navy as a right. After all, an officer makes up his mind to enter the Navy when he is extremely young, and he often does not know his mind at the time he is pushed into the Service by his father, who is probably a Service man.
After being in the Service for a few years, he discovers that it is not the life which he expected, and he would like to get out. It may be that he has developed some new interest, or he may even find that he is not fitted for the Service. Also, that man may have been barred from further promotion and up to now. even although the Admiralty will not promote him, they will not let him go and start a new life.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am very interested in what the hon. and gallant Member is saying, but does he mean that a man should be able to "ask for his cards." so to speak, or to give a week's notice?

Brigadier Clarke: I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. Member.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that a man in the Navy should be put more on a par with men in civilian employment; that a man should be able to give a week's notice?

Brigadier Clarke: I do not think that we can bring trade union principles into the Royal Navy, the Army or the R.A.F. I think we can run this privilege very well, as we have done for a very long time. Of course, all sorts of terrible things happened under six years of Socialism, but now we have a Conservative Government back again, we shall soon get the thing on a proper footing and everything will be all right.
There is another matter to which I would like to refer. There are men who.
at about the time of the crisis at the start of the Korean war, were entitled to their gratuities, but who were called upon for further service for two years. I have raised this question before, and I know of one man in particular who had committed himself to buying a house and furniture because he was looking forward to collecting his gratuity. Eventually, the gratuity was allowed, but he was entitled, after a further two years' service which he had done, to a further £25 for each year; but because he drew the gratuity when it first became due, the Treasury says that he cannot have the other £25 a year.
I do not see why the Treasury should make a profit of £50 out of this man, and others like him, because he drew his gratuity on the day that he was entitled to draw it, and I hope the First Lord will deliver some sort of corrective in the right place at the Treasury. I think this man has been robbed of £50—[Interruption.] I am not going to apologise for keeping the House, because if I sit down, somebody on the other side will get up and keep the House for another couple of hours; and I have a lot to say.

Mr. Nally: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have previously ruled that an hon. Member may be tedious without necessarily incurring your displeasure, or he may repeat himself. But, if he combines the two, then surely, because of that you might be disposed to take what one might term a "a dim view." The hon. and gallant Member has not raised one single point which has not already been raised in the House or by letter to the First Lord.

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order in that. The hon. and gallant Member was not, in my view, guilty of tedious repetition.

Brigadier Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know, the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) has not been in the House most of the evening. He has probably been reading a book, like his hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo).
I want to raise a question on non attributable diseases. If the hon. Member for Bilston has heard that before he is very clever, because it has not been

mentioned at all this evening. There is a great deal of discontent among men who contract diseases which the Admiralty consider not to be attributable to their service. I know this problem is difficult and may cost a little money, but we must remember that a man is given an Al certificate when he enters the Service and yet, after two or three years; he may come out completely disabled because of one of these diseases which are regarded as not attributable to his service.
The Minister of Pensions does his best to regard them as attributable if he can, but certain diseases are not regarded as attributable, for example, tuberculosis. I know of many men in my constituency who cannot get work because during their service they contracted a disease, but they get no pension for their disease if it is non-attributable. There was a service wife in my constituency who nursed her husband, who had a 100 per cent, disability, for nearly 30 years; but when he died his pension died with him. This is a small point but one which the Admiralty must consider. It must see that such women are not thrown on to National Assistance at the end of an extremely useful life, spent in looking after ex-sailors or ex-soldiers, who die of their disability.
I wish, now, to turn to the Civil Lord, and to ask why, without consultation with all those concerned, he decided to close Portsmouth dockyard during two weeks in August. It is the height of the holiday season. Half the dockyard workers have wives and daughters who work in hotels, restaurants, laundries and elsewhere, and who naturally want their holidays at the same time as their husbands and fathers. This decision is very inconvenient to the city. None of the dockyard workers wants to be forced to take his holidays on a date announced by the Minister. The Minister has said that these men had a choice, but in fact it was a very narrow choice; they were asked whether they would prefer the first two weeks in August or the last two weeks. It may well be more convenient for a man to have his holiday in May or June. The Government have always urged staggered holidays.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: They had a choice of six weeks.

Brigadier Clarke: I understood that they were offered simply an alternative fortnight, but I accept what my right hon. Friend says. I hope that next year my right hon. Friend will arrange for a return to staggered holidays.
Finally, I should like to raise a point about merit award, which is given to men who are efficient in their work at the dockyards. The award is on a percentage basis, and if the whole dockyard is efficient not all can get the award. It seems to me wrong that the dockyard can refuse to give the award to men who are efficient because only a percentage is allowed by the Treasury. I think that this award should be given to everybody who is efficient, and I hope that the First Lord or the Civil Lord will see that every man who is efficient draws it in future.
In 1949, the Treasury decided that men who retire should count only half their pre-1949 service for pension. People who have entered since 1949 count all their service for pension. I think that these older men who have served their country and the dockyards well, should be allowed to count the whole of their service for pension, and not only half the time before 1949.
I wish to finish on a note of thanks to the First Lord for the extra money granted to the dockyards for machinery: £7 million is a sum not to be coughed at, and it was a pity that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) should so misread his Estimates that he thought that all they were getting was £39,000. If the First Lord continues next year at that standard which he has now set we shall all be very pleased indeed.

2.12 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am not a mariner, nor can I claim to speak for any of the important dockyard constituencies. For many years now I have taken part in these debates, and listened with interest to what hon. and gallant Gentlemen have said. I have learned a great deal, and I believe that those who represent constituencies which are vitally affected are entitled to have their say, even if the debate goes into the early hours of the morning. My interest in this subject is that of the ordinary Member of the House looking at it from the point of view of the civilian. I believe that the taxpayer should vigilantly and carefully scrutinise

the Estimates, especially when they have become so astronomical as in recent years.
It will not be much use when we have passed this money and go to collect taxation, spending night after night discussing whether such things as linoleum should be subject to Purchase Tax. It is far more important that we should deal with the expenditure when it comes up on the various Estimates. I make no apology for taking part in the debate, because I believe that these questions which we are discussing are fundamental. They overshadow everything else, and we must face them in a spirit of realism and imagination. It is agreed by influential sections of the Press that the Defence Services are taking enormous amounts of the taxpayer's money. The "Glasgow Herald," which is the most prominent Conservative newspaper in the west of Scotland, recently expressed these sentiments in an editorial.
It said, referring to the general Services' expenditure:
It now seems clear that the £1,600 million to £1,640 million level of defence expenditure will operate for at least three years to come. It will interest taxpayers to know that this represents 7s. 6d. in the £ of all Government expenditure. It swallows up the entire yield of the taxes on tobacco and cigarettes, on wines and spirits, beer, entertainment, betting, motor vehicles and petrol, and the Purchase Tax. Such is the price of security.
So I say that we are entitled to examine these questions in great detail, and we do not do our duty to our constituents if we do not consider these Estimates in all their implications.
I think it was three years ago that I suggested that what was needed was an impartial examination of the Navy Estimates by a committee of businessmen. Judging from what I have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House saying in this debate, that idea is gaining ground—that we should have a body of reliable, intelligent, independently-minded citizens who will examine all these issues, not merely from the point of view of the vested interests but from the point of view of the nation as a whole.
This is especially necessary in the case of the Service Estimates because in the Service Departments we have these great vested interests which the Prime Minister himself spoke so strongly about on the Navy Estimates six years ago, when he talked of the enormous number of people


who had come into the Admiralty and who
… make work for themselves and their descendants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March. 1948; Vol. 448, c. 835.]
This procedure is going on. One can hardly blame the persons who are in those posts. Everybody gets into a life routine. People with good salaries and comfortable jobs do not like to be disturbed.
One of the most difficult things to do is to get democratic control of the Services, and the Admiralty is one of the most strongly entrenched. It lives on tradition. The impact of modern scientific thought has made practically no impression on the Admiralty at all. It has made some impression on the Air Ministry, but I find extremely disappointing the First Lord's Statement accompanying the Estimates because there is no sign in it of the thought, conjecture and speculation disturbing us all. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have understood the points made so cogently by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in opening the debate for the Opposition.
The first page of the Statement is devoted to the Coronation, the Coronation Naval Review, the Royal Commonwealth tour, and items of that kind. We have to remember that the Coronation is past, that these items, while interesting enough and having a place in the national life, are not related to the problems with which we are concerned. The problem which the First Lord has is to justify the spending of this £400 million on the Navy at the present time.
The explosion at Monte Bello need never have occurred so far as the Estimates are concerned. There is a reference to it in this document, and there were three lines about it in last year's. After the explosion of the atom bomb, which must have made everybody who takes an interest in naval matters realise that a turning point had come in the history of warfare at sea, we thought that there would be some sign that the policy of the Admiralty had changed and that there would be some sense of realism.
I should like to call attention to what the Prime Minister said about the explosion at Monte Bello. He said:
The object of the test was to investigate the effects of an atomic explosion in a harbour.

This was essentially a naval operation,
The weapon was accordingly placed in H.M.S. ' Plym,' a frigate of 1,450 tons, which was anchored in the Monte Bello Islands…The weapon was exploded in the morning of 3rd October. Thousands of tons of water and of mud and rock from the sea bottom were thrown many thousands of feet into the air and a high tidal wave was caused. The effects of blast and radio-active contamination extended over a wide area and H.M.S. 'Plym' was vaporised except for some red hot fragments which were scattered over one of the islands and started fires in the dry vegetation. … To give some idea of the character of the explosion perhaps I might say this: normal blood temperature is 98 2/5 degrees. When the flash first burst through the hull of 'Plym' the temperature was nearly 1 million degrees. It was, of course, far higher at the point of explosion." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1952; Vol. 505. c. 1268–9.]
This is reality. This country has several big harbours which are vital to our national existence. Recently, when I was in Berlin, I discussed atom warfare with a Russian. He said, "Of course, you realise that the atom bomb, when it explodes in a harbour or in water, is far more dangerous and far more deadly than when it explodes on land." It is with that reality in mind that we should be asking what will happen in the event of another war, and how that affects naval strategy.
We have several harbours on which an atom bomb might be dropped. There is the Thames estuary. Those who take an interest in the problem of Civil De-fence will have realised that if a bomb is dropped on the Thames estuary that will be most serious for London. There might be 30,000 people killed and another 50,000 seriously injured, and half of London might go up in flames. That might occur not only in the Thames estuary but in Southampton Water, on the Tyne, in the Bristol Channel or on the Clyde.
I want to examine the position of the area in which I am directly interested. The Clyde is most important in time of war. The various harbours in the Clyde have for long been naval bases in time of war. When we realise that an atom bomb dropped on the Clyde might vaporise vessels in the neighbourhood, we begin to ask ourselves, "What sort of a situation shall we be faced with?" That situation has been in the mind of


the authorities responsible for Civil Defence in the City of Glasgow.
There have recently been carried out in Glasgow certain Civil Defence exercises based on the theory that an atom bomb might explode over Princess Dock. The gentleman in charge of this investigation, the assistant chief constable of Glasgow, has made an interesting and detailed study, in which he imagines what might happen to the vessels in the Clyde, and says, "Twenty-four vessels in the Princess Dock area are all seriously damaged and sunk, and many are on fire, the docks are quite unserviceable, and it will be a long-term project to get them in service again." So if this is going to happen in our docks and ports, one naturally wonders where the Navy is to find a safe anchorage in the event of an atom bomb war.
There is absolutely no attempt to face up to these realities in the documents we have in front of us. We have had the same old lists of officers, the same old platitudes, but nothing to show that the Government realise that this new kind of atom war has completely altered the naval possibilities, and that we are being faced with an entirely new situation. Once that bomb had shown what could happen to a vessel, then I submit to the House that it should have dawned on the Admiralty that it could not go on in the same old way and must be prepared to think in terms of new ideas.
That point has been made by a very eminent military student and historian, Mr. Chester Wilmot, who in his last work Pointed out that we must revise our whole ideas of strategy, and that the role of the Navy especially should receive attention. He pointed out that the rocket might be directed to our naval bases and dockyards, and said that the invention of rocket weapons had greatly accentuated the problem of defending the British Isles, but that the extent of the transformation in Britain's strategic situation had not yet been reflected in either the problems of defence spending or the composition of our military forces.
What I suggest, if we do get set up the sort of committee I suggested earlier, as a sort of super-committee to look at the position of the Navy and Air Force, is that it will meet every possible obstruction from every kind of vested

interest inside the Services. The Opposition spokesman pointed out that we might merge the Army and the Navy. We have a precedent in merging Ministries. We have merged the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Ministry of Transport, so we might go a little further and perhaps put the Navy in the Ministry of Transport as well, for all the good it is likely to be in protecting the people of this country.
How can one possibly protect the people of Glasgow from the impact of an atom bomb that comes by air? The Navy is an anachronism. It has played its part, and whether the romanticists on any side of the House are prepared to realise that I do not know, but if we do not realise it in theory we shall certainly be forced to realise it if we ever experience the impact of a modern war.
Everyone hopes we are to be spared a war of that kind, but what sort of expenditure are we to be faced with so far as the Navy is concerned if the cold war continues? We have aircraft carriers which cost enormous sums of money, as much as small towns. They are repeatedly altered in the process of their construction and as science progresses, so that they take years to build, and when built they are declared to be obsolete.
The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) developed the theory that we need these huge aircraft carriers because it would be easier to bomb Magnetogorsk in the Urals from such a carrier in the Arctic than from a base on land. What effect is that going to have upon the Russians? If they think that an aircraft carrier is likely to be sent to the northern latitude so that atom bombs can be dropped on Magnetogorsk that will provide them with an impetus to build submarines with which to sink the carrier.
The Russians are building more submarines. Of course, that is a waste of money from the Russian point of view, because they should be building things other than submarines. But while we build immense and expensive aircraft carriers they will continue to build immense submarines, with the result that both nations will be impoverished, even if actual war does not come. The time will come when the statesmen of the world will have to realise that if they are


not to waste the substance of their peoples and lower their standards of life they will have to get together to try to make disarmament a reality.
I do not know whether hon. Members have read the description in "The Times" of the new atomic submarine that has been invented by somebody in America. It has taken a long time to build, and we are told by the Washington correspondent of "The Times," in two columns of descriptive writing about all the latest gadgets and mechanical contrivances in the submarine, and that it is to be driven by atomic power. It will submerge at New York and arrive at Liverpool in a matter of three or four days.
I am not a technician, and I do not know a great deal about the technicalities of submarines, but when I saw that this submarine cost £18 million to build I wondered what sort of economy we should have in this country if we tried to build similar submarines. I presume that if we build submarines, we shall not want to build the cheap obsolescent ones. But what nation in the world can afford to use its manpower, its technical experience, its resources and its money on that kind of thing?
There is one other rather smaller and more trivial point which I wish to raise, but one which has caused a good deal of criticism in our part of the world. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) referred to the Royal Yacht. In the debate on the last Estimates, I referred to the cost of that vessel. I see that recently an article was written by the Editor of the "Sunday Express," Mr. John Gordon. He said that this new yacht
is the most magnificent yacht ever built and certainly by far the most fantastically expensive. The original sum was £1,800,000.
"A whopping sum" is the comment.
But on Clydeside they say the final sum will be up to not far short of £2 million.
Mr. Gordon asks why, and he says:
It is not easy to get the answer to that, for the curtain of silence round John Brown's shipyard is just about as impenetrable as the walls of the Kremlin. But the local whisper is that even John Brown's have never known anything like the chopping and changing of plans that has gone in the past few months.
Who is responsible for that? Nobody will say. But hordes of Admiralty officials have made endless trips to the ship in recent months. And after each visit more costly alterations

were ordered. The staggering cost of building this yacht is by no means the limit of the burden of the taxpayers. She will cost £150,000 a year to run—apart from the fuel.
This is the conclusion:
Of course, the Admiralty's excuse for all this extravagance is that the yacht is really a naval hospital ship. When the fairy tale season is over, I doubt whether that theory will be widely acceptable. It would cost at least another £250,000 to convert her into hospital ship work. And if war ever came, there would be much more urgent work to do.
If this yacht is to be kept in commission at a cost of £150,000 a year, what is the justification for that to the impoverished taxpayer?
I might make some constructive suggestions. Surely the yacht will not be used all the year round. Why not send it to the Clyde on Glasgow Fair holiday and charge admission for the citizens of the Clyde area to see it, and send it along to Blackpool for August Bank Holiday and to all the other seaside resorts at other periods of the year? Perhaps we shall then be able to pay for it and to send it for a period to America, where it can earn dollars. These are the sort of extravagancies that need to be exposed. If we could get a more penetrating examination of these Estimates, a good many of these items might be avoided.
I served in local government on a Scottish town council and a Scottish county council, where we carefully scrutinised every item of expenditure. Far too many big sums are slipping through this House, and Members on all sides, and of all parties, should unite to exert a greater vigilance than is possible in the very cursory examination of the finances of the Service Departments. It is said that liberty is the price of eternal vigilance. It is the price of economy to.
The argument that was used to justify this immense expenditure in the last Navy Estimates debate was that it was necessary to have this huge array of cruisers, frigates, and so on, in order to meet the Russian menace. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey), who sometimes speaks with authority on naval matters, has frequently ridiculed the idea of Russia having a huge force. It is interesting that in the figures he gave in last year's debate on the Navy Estimates, the Minister acted on the assumption that


we alone would have to face Russia in a possible naval war. When comparing our Fleet with that of the Russians, he forgot what seemed to me the obvious fact that if we ever get into a war with Russia, America will be on our side, and so will many of the countries in Europe which have large fleets.
I have with me what, I believe, is the most authoritative book dealing with the naval strength of the countries of the world, "Janes Fighting Ships." In that book I have found certain figures, which are not likely to be under-estimates, showing that Russia has 520,000 officers and men in its Navy. But how many have the others? The United States has 800,000 men in the Navy and 250,000 marines; Spain has 39,000 in the Navy. Turkey 19,500, Britain 150,000, France 70,000, Greece 11,000, Italy 25,000, the Netherlands 28,000, Norway 4,000 and so on. So we find that if the navies of all the N.A.T.O. countries were united the Russians would be hopelessly outnumbered in both vessels and men.
Last year we were persuaded to agree to the huge Navy Estimates without having the whole picture clearly in perspective. The Russians are a land power. They have the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, both of which have bottlenecks. Then they have the White Sea in the North, which is blocked by ice for many months of the year. They also have a long coastline on the other side of the world. I submit that there is no reason for this House to get over-terrified of the prospect of Russia as a great naval power. That is largely a bogey.
The Admiralty will always have these bogeys until some superior authority tells it to stop doing so. If, in two or three years' time, the Germans have been given a navy—and I do not see how that can be avoided if they are rearmed on land and in the air—they may have the latest types of submarines, or even battleships, and then along will come the Admiralty and say, "Now we have to arm against the possibility of having to fight the Russians and the Germans at the same time." And it would not be beyond the wit of the Admiralty to say "We must be prepared to meet the United States if necessary."
There will always be an excuse for keeping up expenditure, because that is the point of view of the vested interest at the top. The duty of democratic Government is to remember that the national interest is superior to any sectional interest. Through tradition the Admiralty has become one of these dangerous vested interests, threatening our national economy by its existence, and the time has come when the House should assert itself in this matter.

2.43 a.m.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: There having been about 12 hours of debate, I shall not speak at the length I had originally intended. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will not expect me to follow too closely the arguments he has put forward, although hon. Members on both sides of the House found them very interesting. I also trust that the First Lord and the Civil Lord will not feel that my intervention in this debate is ill-placed by virtue of the fact that, although I served the White Ensign for many years and am still proud to hold a commission in the Reserve, it was in the Royal Canadian Navy and its reserve that I served originally. During that service I spent a considerable time in this country and had the opportunity to observe the systems of training and the organisation and operation of dockyards, briefly in peace-time but at some considerable length during the period of the last war.
In considering this vast sum of £353 million, I am immediately attracted to the introduction to the White Paper, and I am glad that the First Lord has done something towards offsetting the fears which those of us who are interested have had in relation to the diminishing figures referred to in the fourth paragraph of that Introduction. We are relieved and glad that he has been able to give an assurance relating to discharge by purchase and also about length of service on foreign stations. There has been also some reference to the provision of married quarters, and I should like to direct my remarks to those topics in particular.
I am convinced that the difficulties of recruitment, as set forth on page 10 of the White Paper, are in large measure


due to the two things which my right hon. Friend most stressed in his opening speech today, and that is that the ratings who serve in the Navy have seen for too long too little chance of reasonable married quarters. That is the basis of a great deal of the seven-year engagement rather than the 12-year engagement. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking bold steps to set that right.
The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), in his speech, referred to Vote 10, and he devoted some considerable time to the dockyard position, particularly in relation to Devonport, but in the explanatory note on page 141 we see that the application of moneys to be spent refers to married quarters, and on page 143, which refers to the expenditure abroad, we see that the first reference again is to married quarters. I hope that, that, as a consequence of the policy to be adopted by my right hon. Friend and by the Admiralty, married quarters will come first, because I am convinced that if we are to build a strong force, which is so necessary for the Navy, married quarters, both in the home ports and abroad, at places like Bermuda, Malta, Gibraltar, Hong Kong and Singapore, are among the necessities without which we shall not get the long-term recruit.
I am glad that reference has been made to reduction of service on foreign stations. I put to my right hon. Friend approximately a year ago a series of Questions relating to recruitment and to married quarters, particularly on foreign stations. They related to the availability of a task force which would bring about a condition where the ratings could serve 18 to 20 months and go with their ships for leave. We have not had an assurance about the task force, but I think that was implicit in what my right hon. Friend said today, otherwise we shall be left with a great deal of useless troop transport to far-distant places. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I imagine that something of the nature of an American task force has been envisaged.
Another thing which has caused concern to a number of us is the fact that for the first time this year there is going to be a very large proportion of National Service men entering the naval service to offset the lack of long-service ratings. One does not wish to cast any reflection on these young men, far from it, but it

is a fact that an efficient Navy—and I have had some experience of this in the service to which I have already referred, in which I had a considerable number of years as training officer—cannot be built up with National Service men.
I feel that far too much has been said about technical matters and far too little about the aspect which is most vital to the Navy. Strategic dispositions, the type of ships to be built and so on are no good unless there are available the men who count most in the Navy. The men who count most are the three-badge able seamen, but they are scarcely to be found in the ships or dockyards of the Royal Navy today. Something must be done to make the Service sufficiently attractive to get the 12-year engagement men; the three-badge able seamen, the leading seamen, and petty officers. If we can do that, then we shall have done something towards offsetting the difficulties encountered in relation to the permanent force.
I want to refer briefly to one of the auxiliary services of the Royal Navy which has been mentioned only once before in this debate, and that is the mine-watching service. That is a small, but vital branch. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire has described the possible horrors and difficulties of atomic warfare on our ports. But the ordinary bombs of the last war are something which must be very carefuly guarded against if we are to bring convoys to this country and into our harbours for unloading. The minewatching service is recruited from men who are volunteers; men who give their service freely, and are in training now.
Not far from this House, down the Thames, and in other places of which I have knowledge, I have found these men; and it is rather a neglected service. There is insufficient equipment, particularly among those who have charge of the direction of the service. Allowances for those who have to travel considerable distances each week, such as 2d. a mile for one's private car, are quite inadequate. It is discouraging, to say the least, and I hope that that point will be looked into. Further supplies of equipment are needed. These men are keen; so keen that I think they would rather do without the uniforms, provided at a cost of £12 or £15 each, than go without equipment which is essential to their training.
There has been considerable reference to the various naval dockyards. This is a sore point in Scotland, as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire will agree. For many years past there has been the feeling in Scotland that we supply sufficient ratings to the Royal Navy for consideration to be given to the establishment of a depot there. Of course, Rosyth would appear to be the logical place, and I ask the First Lord to reconsider this matter. The whole art of preparing for another catastrophe, should it ever occur, is the disposal of troops at distances rather than in concentrations; rather than in one or two dockyards in the south. It has always been that our harbours in the north were required in time of war while in time of peace they are neglected. It happened after the last war, and I do most sincerely hope, when we come to the next discussion on the Navy Estimates, that there will be reference to that aspect of our defence.

2.55 a.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I do not want to detain the House for long, but there are one or two points I wish to mention.
I have been inquiring all day what are flag officers and I have now been informed that they are admirals. There are 65 admirals with a Navy which has 150 ships on active service—two and a half ships per admiral. Someone must be making a mistake if we have 65 admirals with so small an Active Fleet. Will the Minister tell us whether that is a fact? As an engineer, I worked in the motor industry and other industries, and I must say that I am astonished to see such a large number of directors with such a small active force. It is an amazing situation. In addition to the admirals, there are 28 officers of relative flag rank and many other officers—about 40,000 officers and 80,000 men.

Commander Donaldson: I should like to clear up what appears to be confusion in the hon. Member's mind. These admirals relate to various branches— executive, the pay branch—now called the supply branch—the engineering branch, and so on. They are not necessarily admirals who go to sea flying their flags.

Mr. Bence: Do they all get admiral's pay?

Commander Donaldson: A great deal of this is administrative.

Mr. Bence: If they all get admiral's pay it is a very expensive way of administering the Navy.
I want, next, to refer to one launching which took place in 1944 and two which took place in 1945. of the cruisers "Defence," "Tiger" and "Blake." Earlier today, the First Lord said much trouble was due to bad accommodation in our ships because there had been improvements in machinery and equipment since the hulls were launched and this had crowded out the men's quarters. He led us to believe that something would be done to rectify this situation.
Work on these three ships has been suspended presumably because of the new equipment which has been designed, and because of research, since the hulls were launched. Bearing in mind that when these ships were designed the design was for the equipment of that time, surely the accommodation in them will be shocking. How often does this sort of thing occur? We launch a ship in 1944 or 1945 and yet in 1954 the hulls are laid up, presumably because they were designed for equipment which is now out-of-date. Surely the whole thing is out-of-date. It is a sheer waste of money to spend it on laying down ships which are out-of-date in nine years. As I said earlier, it is a pity that the Admiralty does not spend its resources on improving our techniques of production and the machinery and equipment in the dockyards rather than waste them in constructing and launching hulls which afterwards it cannot complete because they are out-of-date.

Mr. Digby: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that these were built in war-time and are war-time hulls.

Mr. Bence: Yes, but they ought to be scrapped.
The point I am making is that here are three hulls which are being kept afloat somewhere and are being equipped with the latest machinery, and the First Lord was telling the House that because of the new machinery being installed the crew's quarters were being squeezed up. Why keep them? I do not know anything about the Navy, but they ought to


go. I worked in an industry where, if we manufactured anything that was out of date, it was scrapped.
The other matter I want to raise is rather serious. I come from Clydebank, and the stories that are going around Clydebank about the "Britannia" are shocking. I have nothing official, but it is my duty to tell the House of the tales that are being told of the things which went on over the construction of that yacht. The stories are a disgrace to the Admiralty. I have no evidence to support them, but I am putting them to the House as I heard them. I want the First Lord to hold an inquiry into what occurred.
High-ranking officers the seaid to have been coming from Portsmouth, while things were running along comfortably with the ship. They gave orders for this to be ripped out, and that to be taken out. Formica panels were removed from the bulkheads and squads of me a were put on the ship, and were nearly falling over one another. Thousands of man-hours were wasted because of modifications and alterations. These are the tales that are being told, and that is why I ask the First Lord to inquire how it came about that these changes were made by these high-ranking officers from Portsmouth.
The estimated cost of this vessel was originally £1,800,000, but the ultimate cost, according to this Vote, is £2,098,000, more than £250,000 in excess of the estimate for a vessel of 4,000 or 5,000 tons. It is common talk that the hull was bulging with men working overtime on these useless modifications. I am not a shipwright, and I do not know anything about shipbuilding, but I must take cognisance of the tales I am told when I walk up the Dumbarton Road in Clydebank. I have asked for evidence, but I cannot get it. It is not good enough. If these tales are false and lavish exaggerations of what went on in the ship, they should be settled by inquiry.
All I am saying is hearsay, but it has gone so far that one Sunday newspaper actually had two columns on this subject. That newspaper could not have got it from me, the House can be assured of that. This is the first time I have ever mentioned it in public. It is a serious matter, and I am asking, in the

interests of the public, that the Government, which talks about expenditure and waste, should investigate the stories about the frightful things that occurred on this yacht, and which this town of 40,000 people are discussing. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to institute an inquiry— not by people in the Admiralty: it is no use selecting officers in the Admiralty to make it—to investigate the expenditure on that yacht in order to quell the scandal that is growing about the frightful expense on its building, and especially on its modifications.

3.5 a.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I must apologise to the House for making a relatively brief speech, but I have not a great many matters I want to raise.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend has plenty of time.

Mr. Driberg: I may say, in passing, that I do not share the indignation that has been expressed tonight, or this morning, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) at our discussing these matters at what seems to him an untimely hour. My hon. Friend speaks for himself, of course, as we all do. He says he is not at what he calls his best at 2.30 in the morning. Personally, I am never at my best, but I am even less at my best at what for him is the ideal hour of 10.30 in the morning than I am at two or three in the morning.

Mr. Nally: My hon. Friend got most of his early training, before he became a Member of Parliament, on the "Express" group of newspapers. I got mine on Socialist newspapers, and I have been accustomed to working at civilised hours.

Mr. Driberg: Quite. I have always been accustomed to working for what I would call real newspapers that go to press late at night to print the latest news. As a journalist I must say that I wish my hon. Friend, as a journalist, and so, by definition, a man who verifies his references, had refrained from digging up that old misquotation from Disraeli. It is not this House that is the Mother of Parliaments, but England that is the Mother of Parliaments.

Mr. Nally: I said so myself, not from Disraeli.

Mr. Driberg: No. Unconsciously, perhaps, my hon. Friend was misquoting Disraeli.
I was very glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) raised some of the grievances of the men who were retained over their time because of the Korean war, because I have always felt that they, of all people in the Navy, have had a most legitimate grievance. Unless I misunderstood him, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman was mistaken in saying they were retained for two years. They were retained for 18 months. In any case, I think their grievance was a legitimate one.
I always felt it was an extremely difficult decision for the Admiralty to have to strike a balance between their interests and the interests of the Royal Fleet reservists who also had to be recalled at the same time. It was very difficult to decide which of them had the better claim to be released or to not to be made use of in that emergency. I suppose it is rather academic at this late date, but I still wonder whether something could not be done for those men who were retained, many of them 12-year men who were just about completing their service, who had suddenly to stay on an extra 18 months, without, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, any special bonus or reward, any special recognition of any kind, unless, indeed, they happened to serve in Korean waters, in which case they were entitled to the Korean gratuity. I wish that something special could be done for them, such as allowing all those retained for the extra 18 months to have the Korean gratuity, because it was the Korean War that was the cause of their retention. However, that may be a little difficult to arrange at this late date.
I should like to congratulate the First Lord on what he himself would call his good fortune in being able to make two very agreeable announcements in his speech today. The first was about discharge by purchase. It may be, of course, that he noticed on the Air Estimates last week that some of us indicated that we intended to raise this question tonight. If he did notice that and suddenly thought of it then, he must have worked jolly quickly. It may, of course, have crossed his mind at a little earlier date.
The second was about his intention to reduce the term overseas to one year or as near as possible to one year. We shall have to see how that works in practice. I imagine that there will be considerable difficulties in organising it. If he could also have announced that he would make it possible for more people serving fairly long terms to have the option of breaking their service, then, indeed, his would have been an almost model Estimates speech.

Mr. Callaghan: On the personnel side only.

Mr. Driberg: There is one point of detail that I want to raise. I have already given the right hon. Gentleman notice that I intend to do so. It arises from an unfortunate accident which took place a few weeks ago in a Sea Cadet Corps in Essex.
I have already raised this matter in other contexts in this House, but this is the first time I have had the opportunity of addressing the First Lord directly upon it. Although it may seem to be in one sense a minor matter in comparison with the great issues that have been debated earlier today, I am sure that it is one which the First Lord himself would wish to take very seriously, because it is of great concern to all parents of sea cadets throughout the country, and I know how much store the right hon. Gentleman sets by that admirable pre-service Corps.
I should say that the accident actually occurred in the constituency of the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale), but, as he and I think the whole House would agree, it is of considerably more than mere local interest. I think that he himself has already taken it up with the Admiralty, but I raise it because of the much wider issue involved. Perhaps I could quote from the report of the inquest on the cadet who was tragically killed as a result of an accident during rifle practice.
The cadets who were being trained were using weapons which are apparently completely obsolete. They were weapons which came to this country under Lend-Lease during war-time, and, therefore, they are a good many years old. An expert who gave evidence at the inquest told the jury—I quote from the report:
… every rifle of American and German make had to be reproofed before being offered


for sale in this country, and this particular weapon had not been proved within the meaning of the Act.
The expert also showed how very easy it was for this rifle to be fired accidentally merely by banging it on the ground, and the jury and the coroner made some rather severe comments on the whole business.
There was also evidence from the commanding officer of the unit, a lieutenant of the Sea Cadet Corps, who said that the rifle in question had been in the unit for five years. He agreed, in answer to questions put by the coroner, that it would be better, in the light of what they now knew, to have a better make of rifle and that there was really no one in that unit capable of giving the rifle a thorough technical inspection. There are other disquieting details in this report with which I need not trouble the House.
I think I have quoted enough to show it is a rather unfortunate position if this kind of thing is at all widespread, and I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary can give us some reassurance on this matter, both regarding this particular Cadet Corps in Essex and the Corps in general. I have a question on this matter down for answer in a few weeks' time by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, on pre-service units in general.
I also raised this matter last Thursday night on the Air Estimates to find out what is the situation in the Air Training Corps, because obviously, on the face of it, if obsolete and dangerous weapons of this kind are issued to the Sea Cadet Corps they may be issued, or may have been issued at some previous date, to pre-service units of any kind. We do want to safeguard boys who go into these units against unnecessary risks.
I am bound to say that the hon. and learned gentleman who answered for the Air Ministry did give a clear and satisfactory answer last Friday morning, at 3.23 a.m. He said he could assure me that all the firearms in the A.T.C. are tested periodically. That did not seem to have been the case in the Sea Cadet Corps, at any rate in this particular unit, and he added that after this accident happened they were all specially tested. That is to say, I take it that every rifle used anywhere, in the Air Training

Corps anywhere in this country had a special test as a result of this single tragic accident in a Sea Cadet Corps in Essex.
I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary or the First Lord will be anxious to give us at least as clear and as full an assurance as that on the safety of the boys in the Sea Cadet Corps throughout the country.

3.19 a.m.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: At this time of night it is rather difficult to speak without repetition, for someone is sure to have raised most of the points one wished to raise. I was naturally delighted to hear that so many grievances of which I have written on behalf of constituents are to be remedied. The right of the sailor to buy himself out on the same terms as his comrades in the other Services was a reform long overdue, and which, through force of circumstance, could not be made before.
I am very glad to hear that the provision of married quarters is to be put right in the forefront, for this I know has made a great difference to people staying on in the Service. The long periods of separation for the married men have been the cause of great complaint and the cause, I fear, of many broken marriages. One is often getting complaints that petty officers and others with high qualifications were doing long terms of overseas service, far longer than their fair share. This is probably unavoidable in many circumstances, but the fact remains.
The statement made by the First Lord will certainly be an inducement to men to sign on, particularly as the pay is being increased; a little more makes it much more attractive. How glad I was to see the announcement made the other day that the cuts in the officers' pensions in all the Services would at last be restored. Officers, in particular, look to the future if they make the Services their career. Nothing could be more vital to the idea of keeping the best officers in the Services than the certainty that their pensions will be sufficient and safe. The removal of this injustice has been pressed for by the Portsmouth Members and others in Parliament for a long time. I hope that the powers that be, of whatever party, will bear this in mind.
One point that still rankles is that while the married soldier or airman in the Far


East receives an overseas allowance, as does the sailor who is based ashore, the sailor on the ship does not qualify for such an allowance. Consequently the sailor on the ship in the Far East is worse off than his counterpart in the other two Services. I know that the answer is that a man living on board ship is supposed not to be affected by the high cost of living ashore, and, therefore, does not need the allowance. But this is a real grievance, whatever the explanation. I am not suggesting that the sailor should be helped to keep up the naval tradition of having a wife in every port, but he should have the same privileges as the land lubber.
The First Lord is anxious to keep trained men in the Navy, and I am sure that this concession logical or otherwise would help a great deal in that direction. It is far better and cheaper to try to keep good men happy in the Service than to be perpetually worried about replacements. May I thank the First Lord for what he has done, and ask him to have another look at this suggestion?

3.22 a.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The issue I wish to raise is one at which, I think, the First Lord might have a look. In the first place, I am sorry that the Royal Navy has found it necessary to man part of its forces by the method of conscription. It seems tragic that the Navy should have followed the bad example of the Army and the Air Force in that respect. I wonder whether it is the hard conditions in the Navy which have made conscription necessary.
What distresses me is the fact that while the Navy is taking steps to compel men to join it, difficulties are being placed in the way of boys to want to make that Service their career. I have a nephew who from the age of 12 had set his heart on joining the Navy. He was so anxious to get in that he did additional homework every night. He eventually went for an examination, and for some reason or other he was rejected not on physical grounds, but on academic grounds. I do not believe that the academic test at the age of 15 is so very important for anybody entering the Navy.
I want the First Lord to bear in mind that this lad has already got a grudge against the Services, and that when he becomes 18 and is forced to go into the Army he will hate and detest it because he will be joining a Service with which he does not want to be associated. Had he been allowed to join the Navy at the age of 15 he would not only have been enthusiastic about the work, but would have made good progress in the Service because his heart was in it.
I ask the First Lord, therefore, whether he will not look at the examination which the ordinary boy, coming from the modern secondary school, has to undertake at the age of 15 to get into the Royal Navy; and in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman now has to conscript men for the Navy, whether it would be worth while looking at that test to see whether, if it were made easier, it would be possible for the Royal Navy to get its full complement of manpower by the method of volunteers rather than by resorting to the method which so many of us reject.

3.26 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: I suppose I ought to assure the House that I shall not be speaking for more than an hour. I cannot share the indignation which has been expressed by some about the long Sittings of the debates on the Service Estimates, because I have had a good deal of experience of long Sittings on these Estimates and I think that those who come in and out occasionally and protest about these things ought to make their representations to the proper quarter, which is the Leader of the House, and ask for a few more Parliamentary days on the Service Estimates.

Mr. Nally: My hon. Friend is obviously referring to me. Will he bear in mind that in four speeches since 1946, when I first put down a Motion on this subject, I have repeatedly protested, not about the length of time for which the Service Estimates were discussed, but that they did not begin until 4 o'clock? Will my hon. Friend further do me the honour of realising that since 1946, with one exception, I have never missed an all-night Sitting of any kind in the House? I think that that record is slightly better than that of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Swingler: I made no inference against my hon. Friend except on the protest against those who are interested in carrying on the debates on the Service Estimates. The trouble lies with the Leader of the House—I do not particularise the present Leader of the House, but all Leaders of the House— in that he is not willing to give extra Parliamentary days, which is what is required for the discussion of these increasingly long Votes, with their increasingly complicated questions. It is unfair to put the responsibility on Members who happen to be interested in raising valid points.
From past experience I know that the Admiralty, at any rate, has always paid attention to questions that Members have raised in the debates on the Service Estimates. If the Minister has been unable to reply on the particular and sometimes detailed points which have been raised, the Admiralty has been very careful about sending letters to Members in reply to their questions and in following up the problems they have raised. Members have appreciated very much that the points they have raised in Service Estimates debates have been worth while.
I am sure that the Minister who replies to this debate will devote the greater part of what he has to say to replying to the excellent speech made 11 hours ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who made the burden of the case that we have tried to make on this side of the House. He made it in crystal clear terms yesterday afternoon when considering the fundamental role of the Navy and the prospects of considerable economies in that regard. My hon. Friend referred, in the course of his speech, to the reform of the Naval Discipline Act, and I propose to refer to that question also. I can best summarise my introduction to this by referring to a speech made by the present Solicitor-General on 29th January, 1951, when there was produced to the House a Bill that introduced the establishment of an appeals court for courtsmartial.
It will be remembered that immediately after the Second World War there was considerable agitation in the House about the question of military courts-martial in all three Services and that in 1946 a committee was set up, under Mr. Justice Lewis, to inquire into the judicial system

in the Army and the Air Force. That reported three years later, in 1949, when the Lords of the Admiralty successfully resisted during those three years any enquiry into the Naval Discipline Act. But when the Lewis Committee's recommendations were made in 1949 their bearing was so obvious on some questions of naval discipline that it was found necessary to set up a new committee, under Mr. Justice Pilcher, on courts-martial procedure and disciplinary questions in the Navy. That committee sat in 1950 and 1951 and produced two reports, one at the end of 1950 and one at the beginning of 1951. One of the things which emerged from those reports on judicial procedure in the Army, Air Force and the Navy was the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill which had its Second Reading in the House on 29th January, 1951, when the present Solicitor-General said this:
The House will remember that it was as a result of pressure from this House that the Lewis Committee was appointed on 4th November, 1946. That Committee reported in April, 1948. It was not until January, 1949, that the Members of this House were able to read what that Committee had reported, and then we were told that the position in the Navy must be considered. So it was not until 17th February, 1949, that the Pilcher Committee was set up. That Committee reported on 20th February, 1950. Then we had this Bill on 15th December last year and last Friday"—
he was speaking on 29th January, 1951—
the White Paper to which the right hon. Gentleman has made a passing reference.
It appears from that White paper that, although the Government have had the Lewis Report since April, 1948, and the Pilcher Report since February, 1950, they have not made up their minds as yet on no fewer than 14 of the recommendations in the Lewis Report and on six recommendations in the Pilcher Report." —[OFFICIAL REPORT 29th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 605.]
That is the present Solicitor-General on the subject of these reports from the Pilcher Committee, of which he happened to be a distinguished member.
I have checked up on all references to naval discipline since 29th January, 1951, three years ago, and I find that there are no references whatever in the OFFICIAL REPORT to anything concerning the Pilcher Report or the introduction of the reforms in the Navy to implement the recommendations that were made by this Committee. In the speech which he then made the present Solicitor-General referred to an Interim Report of the Pilcher Committee on Naval Courts-Martial in


1950. The first main Report of the Pilcher Committee was issued in November, 1950, and included 61 recommendations for reforms under the Naval Discipline Act; and in January, 1951, the Pilcher Committee issued another Report concerned particularly with summary jurisdiction in the Navy, and this had 14 main recommendations about reforms. We have no record of any action whatever taken on these recommendations, apart from the action covered by the previous Government to produce an appeal court for men subject to courts-martial.
There were, at any rate, three very important questions raised in those years which led to the establishment of these enquiries into the administration of justice in the Navy. One was the very important question of unanimity of the findings of courts-martial. I am sorry to say that the Pilcher Committee came down against the recommendation that had been made by the Lewis Committee on the Army and Air Force, and against establishing the principle that the findings in a naval courts-martial must be unanimous. It is interesting to note that in the first report of the Pilcher Committee, in 1950, the present Solicitor-General and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), the former Solicitor-General, issued a Minority Report, which said this:
We regret that we are unable to agree with the majority of our colleagues that the finding of guilty or not guilty by a naval-court-martial should be determined by the votes of the majority. Nor can we accept the summary of arguments in favour of unanimity given in paragraph 118 of the Report as an adequate statement of our views…
In our opinion where a person subject to the Naval Discipline Act is charged before a naval court-martial with an indictable offence, a finding of guilty based on the views of a bare majority and ignoring those of the minority of the senior and responsible naval officers who sit on courts-martial is not consistent with the requirement of English law that the guilt of the accused shall be established beyond all reasonable doubt.
I think that that is of great importance. This matter has not been rectified in the other two Services, and the Navy may be said to be the only sphere in the Services in which the rule of unanimity does not apply in the presumption of innocence unless there is unanimous

opinion that the person is guilty and subject to court-martial. I think it is regrettable that this question has not been debated in the House and that nothing has been done by the Admiralty since the present First Lord came to office.
The same applies to a second very important recommendation, which relates to the right of a man accused to opt for a court-martial. The Navy is away behind the other two Services in granting the right to offenders or defaulters to opt for a court-martial. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East said in his reservation to the 1950 Pilcher Committee Report:
… the powers of summary punishment of Commanding Officers in the Royal Navy far exceed those found necessary in the other Services.
This may very severely restrict the right of a man to opt for trial by court-martial.
It seems to me that this lengthy Report and its recommendations have lain for three years in a pigeon-hole in the Admiralty with the dust gathering upon them, and there has been no statement to the House whatsoever about any of these recommendations being carried out, nor any attempt to bring forward these matters to the House for debate.
There is a third recommendation, which is very important, and about which again there was disagreement on the Pilcher Committee. That was the question of the appointment of civil judges to naval courts-martial. Once again, differentiating the Pilcher Committee from the Lewis Committee, there was disagreement about the question of whether it was advisable in naval practice to have civil judges to preside in certain cases over courts-martial.
These are very important matters, and they are not, of course, the only matters in respect of which the Naval Discipline Act is very archaic. Indeed, Ministers at the Admiralty know, because my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East, through the medium of the Press, has been drawing attention to many respects in which the Naval Discipline Act is completely old-fashioned and ought to be revised. When it came, nine years ago, to consideration of this question of judicial procedure in the Armed Forces, the Navy was several years behind the


Army and the Royal Air Force in establishing the necessary committee of inquiry and getting recommendations for reform.
We now have the situation where there is a Select Committee hard at work every week going through the Army and Air Force Act, and the time has come, to put it at its least, for a Select Committee, or committee of inquiry, to go through the Naval Discipline Act, in the same way as the Army and Air Force Act is being gone through, and comb out the archaic provisions.
If it is impossible for the Admiralty— and I do not believe it is—to weigh in on the Government's legislative programme and bring forward proposals immediately for the amendment of the Naval Discipline Act, then we should at least have some assurance that a committee will be established to go through it as thoroughly as the Army Act is being gone through so that it may be brought thoroughly up to date.
There is one other matter to which I would refer. On page 8 of the First Lord's Explanatory Statement, there is a cryptic reference, under the heading of administration, to certain recommendations of a committee which investigated the relationship between the Admiralty and the Ministry of Supply with a view to improving the production of naval aircraft. I presume that this is a reference to the Rogers Committee. It is stated to be a committee established as a result of the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates in 1951–52 on the subject of the inspectorate of naval ordnance, and if I am not right in this respect, then, apparently, there is no reference in the First Lord's Explanatory Statement at all to this committee.
Could we be told why the First Lord has agreed with the Minister of Supply not to publish the Report of the Rogers Committee? After all, very strong allegations were made by a Select Committee of the House, and they were given wide publicity in the Press, about wastage of manpower in the Royal ordnance factories by the Admiralty.
I do not wish to weary the House with a large extract, but in paragraph 87 of the Twelfth Report from the Select Committee on Estimates, published on 28th October, 1952, it is stated:
In the course of their visits to the filling factories, members of Your Committee could

hardly have failed to observe the large number of inspectors whose principal duty was merely to watch a small section of production. In the filling factory group there was one C.I.A. inspector for every 6.2 industrial workers and one I.N.O. inspector for every 13.3. There is no significance in the difference between these figures as the volume of work for the Ministry of Supply was greater than that for the Admiralty; but the combined ratio is one inspector to every 4.3 workers, which is. alarmingly high.
The committee then went on to deal with the technical demands of the Admiralty, and the demand for a separate inspectorate, and the various grounds for this demand in the Royal Ordnance Factories. The First Lord and the Minister of Supply set up a committee to consider various matters, including wastage of manpower. When the Minister of Supply was questioned, on 1st February, he said that there was nothing secret about the Report but, for a reason which he would not disclose, he refused to publish it. He said:
I do not think that this is the kind of report that should be published, although there is nothing very secret about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 17.]
He gave promises to a number of hon. Members to send them summaries of the Report.
I cannot understand why it should be hushed up and why the House should not be told what action the Admiralty is taking in relation to the allegations of the Select Committee and how far the duplication of inspectors has been reduced. Could we know what is now the ratio of naval inspectors to workers in the R.O. Fs. and how much the inspectorate has been reduced, or did the Rogers Committee show that there was no duplication? As all these facts were published by the Select Committee, it is. only fair to the Service Departments, since they set up a committee to investigate the matter independently, that the findings of the Committee should be reported and the House permitted to know to what extent there has been a saving in manpower and an administrative economy achieved as a result of the very careful investigations of the Select Committee.
I do not expect a final answer now, but I hope that further investigation may be made into both these points and that we may later have statements from the First Lord about them.

3.47 a.m.

Mr. Walter Edwards: We have had a very good innings on the Navy Estimates. Hon. Members on both sides have had some complaints to make about the administration of the Admiralty and the presentation of the Estimates and in some cases there has been a little praise for one or two things which the First Lord said.
I was extremely dissatisfied with the complacent tone of the First Lord's speech. It seemed a case of the Navy just jogging along and saying, "Leave it to us. Everything will be all right." It was not until my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) spoke that the House became interested in what was the exact rôle of the Navy. That is borne out on both sides of the House. What my hon. Friend said is a matter for serious consideration by those in charge of the defence of this country, and I am sure he said it only with that purpose in mind. Whether we like it or not, careful note will be taken of what happens between now and the presentation of the next Navy Estimates either by this or by another Government.
I will not express an opinion about whether it is easy to join the Air Force with the Navy or the Navy with the Air Force. The only point of importance on this which my hon. Friend made was that if they are to be joined together it is a matter which should be carefully considered, and I am sure that no one who is concerned with military matters in this country would object to questions of that description being carefully considered. He has not said that they will have to be joined together, but that will obviously have to be borne in mind by those in charge at the Admiralty and the Air Ministry.
Almost every aspect of Admiralty activity has been covered during this debate. The questions of recruitment, dissatisfaction, re-engagements, and last, but not least, the Naval Discipline Act have been mentioned. There were a number of other questions which are not as important as those, and I do not intend to take up too much of the time of the House in repeating what hon. Gentlemen have said about those particular matters. Both sides of the House are concerned about recruitment and re-engagement. There was one sentence in the

speech by the First Lord which did worry me to some extent. It was when he said that the Admiralty could not pretend to the House that the future of the Navy was promising from the point of view of manpower. That was a serious statement.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: But the hon. Gentleman has just accused me of complacency.

Mr. Edwards: It is complacency because I can see no evidence of trying to do anything to stop that unpromising future. We shall have to wait to see what the extra 2s. a day will do. It may make all the difference to re-engagement and recruiting, which are matters for the naval authorities. One of the reasons why Governments were able to get recruits for the Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force before the war, or to get people to re-engage them, was that the men had no jobs to go to when they came out, and they had none when they entered the Service.
That is not the situation now, and compared with 30 years ago those serving in the Navy never had so much civilian respect for marriage association as we have now. When I first joined the Navy, a man, even if he was married, knew that he was in the Service for a specified period, and if he had to go away on a two year commission he knew that he had to be away from his wife for those two years. That is not the idea of men serving in the Navy now, who want to be able to be with their wives and families as much as possible, whether in home ports or abroad. That is one of the difficulties in getting men to re-engage, even if we increase their pay. It will also be a difficulty in recruitment.
It is not my intention to follow up what everybody else has said, because I think we have spent a fair amount of time on these matters, and I do not want to be accused of repetition, but there are several points of interest to the House, the Navy and the country that I would put to the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, and of which I have given him notice.
It will be noted that the total number of men in Vote A is to come down from 151,000 to 139,000, a reduction of 12,000. Of the 12,000, flag officers, commissioned and branch officers number 250. The number of other ranks to come out of the


Navy is 10,900. According to my calculation, only one officer out of every 58 at present serving, and only one out of 66 flag officers, will be coming out, but one out of every 11 ratings is to come out. I want to know whether the Navy will become top-heavy with officers when Vote A is reduced in that way. If there is another reduction in Vote A next year, will it be on that basis? There arc 1,200 chief petty officers due to come out of Vote A in 1954 to 1955. Are the officers to do the work of the chief petty officers but to be paid as officers? To a limited degree the same is true of the Royal Marines. The number of Royal Marines next year is to come down.
I turn to Vote 2 and clothing and victualling. It appears from the First Lord's statement that we are to have a larger number of men added to the Navy through National Service, the highest for a long time. There is a reduction in the estimate for clothing of £2,868.000. The number in the Navy has decreased because of the release of the reservists and the time-expired men, but is it appreciated that if we have an increase in the number of National Service men they will have to be supplied with new uniforms? This Vote was reduced by £3 million last year, and I cannot understand how it is possible to reduce it again this year. Is it because the Government are using stocks built up by the Labour Government and are not purchasing any more, or are they taking chances with regard to the new entry?
On the next Vote, I may have to repeat something said by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the closed holiday fortnight. When I was Civil Lord of the Admiralty I always maintained that questions of this kind should be discussed with the trade unions and not on the Floor of the House. I endeavoured to do everything by agreement with the trade unions. I still adhere to that policy. Such matters as holidays, pay and allowances should be dealt with in the first place by the trade unions through the Admiralty Joint Industrial Council.
However, the matter has been raised today. The First Lord will remember that, in reply to a supplementary question which I put three or four weeks ago, he stated that the decision on the closed

holiday fortnight, did not have concurrence of the trade unions through the A.J.I.C. but was simply forced upon them by the Admiralty. Employers sometimes have the right to force conditions upon people employed by them, but I cannot understand why that has been done in this case. Before the war there was a closed week which was used mainly for the purpose of Navy Weeks so that the Navy benevolent funds could obtain some money to help past and present members of the Service.
The staggered holiday was introduced because of war conditions. The system worked very well indeed until this year. The men in the industrial side of the Admiralty now get two weeks instead of one week. If staggered holidays of one week per year proved satisfactory during the war and for about eight years afterwards, I cannot see why staggered holidays of two weeks should not prove equally satisfactory. I maintain that what the Admiralty has done by taking this decision is to make more difficult the opportunity for its employees to go holiday-making and at the same time to make the employees discontented. How many people at present have to have two weeks' holiday spread over a period of six weeks? I am sure that the civil servants in the Admiralty do not; I am sure Members of Parliament do not, and I am sure that the vast majority in industry do not, and I cannot see what economy this can make to the Admiralty in any way.
I understand, however, the matter is now settled so far as the A.J.I.C. is concerned and so far as this year's holidays are concerned. But when Government after Government—and this was done by the Coalition Government, the Labour Government and the present Government —say that it is in the interests of the nation that holidays should be staggered, and the Admiralty change staggered holidays to closed fortnights, it does appear strange that such a policy should apply.
I am mentioning this only because it has been mentioned before by hon. Members from each of the dockyard towns, where, obviously, apart from the trade union movement, there seems to be some concern. I do hope that, if nothing can be done this year, due note will be taken when this matter receives consideration for next year.
The question of contract work for the Navy, as concerned on page 104 of the Estimates, has also been referred to, and there was the competition between some of those in the shipbuilding districts and the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) as to where it should go. All I should like to be certain about is that, with this tremendous amount of contract work going on now, we are satisfied that the full resources of the Royal dockyards are being used. I really think we are, but when one sees the staggering figures of contract work one is entitled to know that the Royal Dockyards are not being sacrificed in any way.
I should like to be assured whether an extra effort is being made to give the dockyard employees the opportunity of building ships instead of repairing ships the whole time. There is a huge labour force employed by the Admiralty, and we are incurring tremendous expense in training young workers, who, it appears, are spending much more of their time on repairing rather than on building. A man who is a craftsman wants to build something rather than mend something.
I believe that last year I called Vote 10 my baby, but I suppose that I have to call it my granddaughter now, as it is a year old. I am extremely unhappy about Vote 10. I am sure that the Civil Lord would have liked to have got the money, but I do not think that the Board of Admiralty has done all that it should have done to the Civil Lord. In the First Lord's speech, and in many other speeches today, we have heard about recruitment, contentment, re-engagement, and everything else, and it has been said at least during every debate on the Navy Estimates since 1945, if not during the war, that the finest way to keep a man in the Navy is to give him married quarters.
In 1946, the married quarters policy was started, and by the time this Government came into power almost every air station in this country had its quota of married quarters. One can see all that has been spent in 1953 and 1954, and the provision which has been made by the previous Government, mainly because of their consideration of married quarters. I am dealing with Vote 10 now, which, I ought to explain, has nothing to do with the home ports or married quarters

at home, except those for key personnel in Northern Ireland and those abroad.
Even if we discount Vote 15 for the time being, all that is being voted this year is £19,000, and another £143,000 is being spent as a result of schemes which, I submit, were in being before the present Government came to office. All that the future holds—unless there is something which has not yet been spent out of previous schemes—is £91,000 for Vote 10 in this country.
How many houses do we get for £91,000? Is that really a very great incentive when people who know these figures are able to say that that is all the Admiralty is to do with regard to that phase of married quarters? But something which is even more important is the question of the accommodation of personnel. For 1953–54 the sum of £63,000 was voted, and £742,000 was spent in excess of that figure as a result of previous schemes on accommodation for personnel.
We see in these Estimates that for the year 1954–55 over £1 million is to be spent on such accommodation under schemes which I think the Civil Lord will agree have been in operation for some time

Mr. Digby: Not all.

Mr. Edwards: The best part of them have. However, what is the provision to be made now? We have the figure of £22,000 for new works this year. Obviously, we are not going to get much in the way of barracks for £22,000. The total Estimate for new works to be started this year is only £470.000.
To come back to dockyards and factories—there was some confusion about the matter when my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) was speaking—we see that £749,000 was spent last year on previous proposals and that only £37,000 was proposed by the present Administration for new works. It is true that the £37.000 is increased to £76,000, but, even so, £974,000 has to be spent this year out of the money allocated for previous schemes. I admit that so far as the £76,000 new works this year is concerned, it will in due course involve the Admiralty in an expenditure of £1½ million. There, again, are we really attacking this problem of


Vote 10 in the way we should attack it so far as barrack accommodation for personnel is concerned?
That is a very heavy item of expenditure. The same applies to the dockyards. If we are going to say every year that this is all the money that we are going to spend on the improvement of barracks for personnel, can we wonder at the lack of recruitment and re-engagement? We must do something more.
There is no reason why this Vote should not have been higher this year. If priority is to be given to the conditions under which the men in the Services are to live, there is no reason why, from the point of view of the efficiency of the Navy, the dockyard reconstruction scheme should not be speeded up as quickly as possible. At the present rate, goodness knows how many years it will take before the barrack and dockyard reconstruction schemes are completed.
So far as accommodation for personnel is concerned, compared to what it was when I first entered the Navy nearly 36 years ago, there is a wonderful improvement. Had the people who complain today known it 36 years ago, they would appreciate what they have. That wonderful improvement, however, is only in certain sections, and we must increase the improvement in barrack accommodation as quickly as possible.
One stark feature about Vote 10 at home is that I think it would be found that the total estimate for new works this year is £1 million or more less than last year, which means that the future is less promising than a year ago. There is years and years of work to be done. If it is to be the policy of the Board of Admiralty to bring down the total estimate on the Works Vote year by year, obviously nothing, or very little, can be done for naval personnel, and only very little can be done in dockyard improvements. I suggest that when the Estimates come before us next time, as I think I said last year, more consideration ought to be given to the improvement of the men's living accommodation in the Service and the working conditions in the dockyards.
There is one brief point that I should like to make about married quarters abroad. The amount that is to be spent is not very great. As most people know, the cost of building abroad is higher even

than in this country. Only £25,500 is being voted for 1954–55, and the total estimate for new works to be started in the year is £258,000. The First Lord, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Civil Lord will all agree that the prospects of accommodation for personnel abroad do not seem bright. These are matters which ought to be looked at.
Vote 12 has always been one of the Votes which the Opposition have criticised. I well remember that from 1945 to 1951 the spokesmen for the party opposite, when in opposition, never left Vote 12 alone. They always told us how shocking it was for the Labour Administration to carry such an enormous load under Vote 12 as we were carrying at that time. They complained about the terrific number of naval staff, apart from the extraordinary number of civil servants who came under Whitehall.
It is rather strange that not only last year was Vote 12 increased, but that despite the numbers coming down from something like 151,000 to 139,000, the Vote is again increased.

Commander Noble: The numbers are down.

Mr. Edwards: Yes, but only very slightly—nobody has said by how many —and yet the cost has gone up. In one or two departments the numbers are going up. I do not know whether there is any switching from one department to another. In any case, the cost is going up, and the cost is higher now than it has ever been since 1945.
The reason given in the last three years for the high cost of Vote 12 has been the fact that we have to get on with the job of rearmament. Well, we have more or less come somewhere near that; we hope to do so at any rate by the end of 1955. I am not saying for a moment that this has not been fully inquired into by the Financial Committee of the Board of Admiralty, but it is strange that when the party now in office were in Opposition they always complained about this Vote, yet, when in office, increase it. I hope that will be a lesson to them when they are in Opposition again.
Last, but not least, is Vote 15. It will be remembered that during the past financial year the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act has been altered to make provision for more money to be bor-


rowed under that Act. The First Lord has said it has been decided by the Admiralty that married quarters shall be provided in home ports, and I assume that the married quarters to be provided in the home ports will come out of Vote 15.
I am sure that almost everybody connected with the home ports is extremely happy about that decision. I would only ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that he cannot go more quickly on this issue. If the men and materials are not there, well and good, he cannot do more than is being done. As we have got the money under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, let us get on with the job as soon as we possibly can, because I am sure that will help the Navy in contentment and perhaps in recruitment.
Those are the questions I have taken the trouble to dig out. I have tried not to detain the House for too long. I would only repeat what I said last year in the conclusion of my speech, that to be associated with the Navy is a great honour. It is a great force in this country which has very, very important and beneficial repercussions throughout the world. Those of us who may have any connection with it or who are in charge of it must ensure that everything done for the Service is for the benefit of the nation, and for the benefit of mankind as well.

4.23 a.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Commander Allan Noble): This is the third time I have had the privilege of winding-up the main debate on the Navy Estimates. The times of doing so have varied from year to year, but this one is so much of a record that I begin to think it is rather a doubtful privilege.
First, may I say how very glad we are to see the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) back again. He was away last year. If I may say so, I thought he made a very helpful and thoughtful speech. I was very glad to hear what he said about the new cadet entry, and we must all now try to make it work. In that connection, my right hon. Friend was very grateful for what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King) said, because he also gave the new scheme his blessing. The hon. and

gallant Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey) still remembered his many inhibitions, but I hope that when he studies the scheme he will see that there is equal opportunity for, as he said, the son of the Duke and the son of the cook.
I should like at once to add my congratulations to those that have already been given to my two constituents, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Major Wall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). I think the House will agree that they made most useful and distinguished contributions and we shall look forward to hearing them again. I will come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North a little later, but perhaps I might say here that I shall look forward to seeing him slinging his hammock in the corridors of the House.
Perhaps I might deal straight away with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, Haltemprice about the Royal Marines and amphibious warfare. We do attach great importance to this; we are retaining the amphibious warfare squadron and the Commandos because we feel they had a most important role to play in keeping alive the technique and in testing new craft and weapons.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) and others asked various questions about the weapons and ships of today and the future. It is such a very long time ago that they may have forgotten what the questions were, but I will try to give some of the details. I was asked for figures about new construction, and particularly about frigates. I can tell him that five of our new frigates are expected to undergo their trials this year, and another 20 are building. Ten more conversions are expected to be completed during the coming year and nine have already been done. There are 13 to do and seven old Loch frigates will complete their modernisation.
We are continuing to modernise our six-inch cruisers, and when that is done they will be first-class ships and certainly able to take on any "Sverdlov" cruisers on not too unfavourable terms. I should


like to remind the House of the action in the last war when the "Graf Spee," with superior armament, was dealt with by three small cruisers. Also in connection with cruisers and other heavy ships, I would remind the House that in rough weather, when aircraft are unable to fly from the carriers, they are able to give anti-aircraft protection to our fleet.
I should like to tell the House of two developments in the gunnery world. We have now got a first-class new six-inch gun which is of a really revolutionary rate of fire. Four of these guns will deliver five tons of metal per minute, which is something very high compared with what was known in the past. At the same time, we find similar progress with the new three-inch gun, which will have a rate of fire formerly associated with heavy machine guns. All this will be of great value to the Fleet.
I think the House would expect me to deal in some detail with the question of carriers. We attach great importance to our carriers, both today and in the future. They provide, with their aircraft, what we might call the main armament of the Fleet today. If we had no carriers the Navy's rôle would be probably one of local defence of our forces at sea. But it has always been the duty of the Navy to seek out and destroy the enemy wherever possible and so deny him the sea.
Naval aircraft, of course, consist of strike aircraft for bombing land and sea targets and they are useful in the destruction of a surface raider; the fighters to destroy the shadowers and the bombers operating outside the range of the shore-based fighters and anti-submarine aircraft to seek out and destroy the enemy submarines in co-operation with our sea surface forces and with Coastal Command. The fleet carrier is heavily armoured and is faster and with greater range than the light fleet carrier. It is designed to do all this work, by which I mean, it is designed to carry all the aircraft necessary for these tasks.
The light fleet carrier is limited by size. One hon. Member asked my right hon. Friend what exactly he meant by escort carriers. He meant that to cover the light fleet carrier, the "Mac" ships, the converted ships and what may be the helicopter ship of the future. It was a comprehensive

term. May I now say that it is all very well for hon. Members to suggest that we must rely on shore-based aircraft, but I would ask them, "Where would the next war lead us?" Let them remember that carriers were required in Korean waters, and, in the last war, from north Russia to the Pacific.
I wonder, too, whether any hon. Members, during the last war, found themselves protected at some stage by aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm, and whether any found themselves at sea in the unfortunate position of there being no allied aircraft; with the enemy shadowing the convoy or ship for hour after hour, when one had the almost certain knowledge that all the U-boats in the area were being called up.
I would refer to what the Prime Minister said in the defence debate —that we must not scrap our conventional weapons until we have the weapons which we see coming along in the future. I have been asked about the weapons which the carriers' aircraft will carry; I would say that I should think they would be able to sink a fair sized cruiser.
Then, I was asked about the Navy of the future. I do not think I could give a full answer at this hour of the night, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North made a contribution to that answer in his excellent speech when he said that our anti-submarine and mine sweeping efforts should continue, not only in the initial phase, but also in what the Prime Minister has called the "broken back" war. This country, and Europe, will have still to be supplied with food and raw materials, and the Navy would not be able to "let up" in any way.
We attach the greatest importance to the Navy in offence. As I said earlier, it has to seek out and destroy the enemy, and we visualise that carriers and their aircraft may be necessary even after the R.A.F. fighter and bomber have become what I understand are known by the current and official term of "unmanned fighting vehicles." One cannot throw an atomic guided missile at a raider or a submarine. One has to find it first, and we think that the carrier will have this duty in the future.
Reference has been made to a new submarine and a new fuel, and, like the Americans, we are thinking in terms of


nuclear propulsion for submarines and other ships.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South East suggested that perhaps the R.A.F. and the Royal Navy should merge; should become one Service. I am sure that, having been at the Admiralty, he would suggest that the Navy should take over the R.A.F. But this is not a suggestion to which we have given a great deal of thought so far.
The hon. Member for Preston, South, I think it was, questioned the need for a Navy on the grounds that the Russians were not a sea Power; that they showed no great interest in their Navy. But I would tell the House that there has been a great change in Russia in this matter, and great importance is now attached by the Russians to their Navy. Many of us saw the "Sverdlov" at the Coronation Naval Review, and the Russian Commander-in-Chief has written in "Pravda" that she is in no way an exception. On her way back she did "showing the flag" cruises in various satellite ports behind the Iron Curtain. As far as I know, nine of these ships are in existence and others are building.
At the same time, much of the Russian effort is going to building long-distance ocean-going submarines. There has not been a break-down of Russian defence estimates for the last four years but it is known that in 1950 they allocated 15,000 million roubles to the Navy, which is about £1,340 million, compared with our Navy Estimates that year of £193 million.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is the value of the rouble?

Commander Noble: The value of the rouble is always a little uncertain, but that is at the rate at which, I am given to understand, it should be converted.
That is, about one-fifth of the total defence effort is being given to the Navy. A new note has entered Soviet publicity. Russia is referred to publicly as a great sea power. Two films have been released on the life of the 18th century Russian Admiral, Ushakov, who is being built up as the Russian counterpart of Nelson and even as Nelson's superior and teacher in operational tactics.
Finally, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian naval forces, who is known

to be a personal friend of Molotov, was this year asked to take the salute with the Minister of Defence at the Soviet Air Force Day. I think that is taken as an indication of the growing association of Russian naval and air power in global and arctic strategy. In that connection, I was interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Hamilton Kerr). We take very seriously the point which he raised.

Mr. Shackleton: Before the Minister leaves the point, may I point out that he has not given the House a satisfactory account of what the Navy' role should be in its deterrent capacity. Nothing in either his speech or that of the First Lord has given that information. I hope he is not advocating building up a Navy simply because the Russians indulge in a lot of propaganda.

Commander Noble: The answer is that the naval forces in N.A.T.O. provide a deterrent similar to that of the air forces and military forces, and I do not think we can dissociate one from another.
Much has been said about manpower problems and several hon. Members have given personal experiences of naval discipline. Perhaps I may be allowed to give mine. On naval discipline, as distinct from the Naval Discipline Act, to which I will refer in a moment, I would say that naval discipline has always been based on mutual esteem between officers and men. The officers have to like and respect their men and the men to like and respect their officers. That has been done in the past in a Service in which there were long-service volunteers and where the captain, officers and men stayed together in a ship for some time. By his announcement of the general service commission and the limitation of foreign service to 18 months, my right hon. Friend has done something to bring that back. Foreign service in the general service commission will be a maximum of a year, but in the Far East and certain other places it will be 18 months.
In the past, a minority have had their wives with them in places such as Malta, but my right hon. Friend has pointed out that this was a very small minority in the Navy. I am certain that if any family is faced with separation the fact that the husband is to be away for less than a year would keep them at home in


their own house, with the children at the same school, instead of packing up and travelling half across the world. When I visited the Fleet in the Far East and Korean waters last summer the first thing that the men always said was that foreign service was too long. Captains, officers and ratings said that in a ship away for a long time welfare cases began to arise after about a year. There was news from home that families were breaking tip, and it was most disconcerting and worrying for men who were so far away from home. I am, therefore, glad my right hon. Friend's proposals about this matter have been well received by the House.
Much has been said about malicious damage. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East quoted figures given to him recently by my right hon. Friend. They are all young men on Regular engagement, but there was no clear motive. It may have been a grudge against life or the service, but there was no evidence to show that it was an organised campaign. In several cases men had been transferred from ship to ship in a way which is bad for officer-men relationship. We hope that now that the Service is getting back to normal after the war and the hostilities in Korea these incidents will disappear as quickly as they have arisen.
Many questions were asked about living conditions, but I need not go into it fully except to give some idea of the new arrangements. A new type of messing is being tried in some small ships with the meals being prepared centrally. I saw some of this when I was in the Far East, and it is popular. A new type of hammock which can be converted into a camp bed is being fitted, and bunks are being fitted in new and modernised carriers. There is also improved furniture and kit lockers of increased capacity and security are being provided. Laundries, drinking water coolers, ice cream makers and refrigerators are now being fitted. The increased laundry and bath-room fittings which will interest the hon. Member for Hudders-field, East mean that more water will fee required, and distilling is always a problem at sea. It will be appreciated that these improvements I have mentioned are not all in force in the same ship, but these are the lines on which new construction is going.
I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) talked about Sea Cadets doing their National Service with the Navy. We have had to restrict our National Service to those who have joined the R.N.V.R.. but we have taken some qualified Sea Cadets and Scouts, and it may be that now we are taking more National Service men we can fling our net wider.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Baldock) and other hon. Gentlemen mentioned minewatching. We attach great importance to it, and there is room for volunteers. Those who have volunteered are doing well. We appreciate the need for more equipment, training facilities and exercises. Incidentally, my right hon. Friend is opening an exhibition in London on this subject at the end of the month and an exercise of mine dropping by helicopter will take place off Greenwich.
I should now like to refer to the unfortunate case of the sea cadet with a rifle, mentioned by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). That training was not part of the training run by the Admiralty, and in view of the recommendations he has quoted instructions have been issued that these rifles are not to be used until further orders, and pending the consideration of satisfactory and adequate arrangements for maintaining such rifles they will not be used by sea cadets.
One word about the Naval Discipline Act, which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler). The latter described the Pilcher Committees' work in a certain amount of detail, and the House will not want me to do so now. The first Pilcher Committee made 61 recommendations, 54 of which have been accepted either fully or in some modified form. The second made 13, of which all have been accepted either completely or in modified form. Many of those acceptances, which were announced by the late Government in January, 1951, in a White Paper, which the hon. Gentleman quoted, have not required legislation and have been put into force by administrative means.
We have been asked tonight why we have not produced legislation to amend


the Naval Discipline Act. I am certain no new Government could have been expected to have done that in its first Parliamentary Session. Since then, as the hon. Gentleman will agree, events were overtaken by the Select Committee on the Army and Air Force Annual Bill. We are in close consultation with that Select Committee, and are represented on the official committee that works below it. That Select Committee has not yet reported. When it does, the Army and the Air Force will want to consider how to implement its proposals. It seems common sense that we should wait to see what the implications may be for the Naval Discipline Act.
I have been asked whether we could have a Select Committee to consider this matter. That would be considered at the appropriate time by my right hon. Friend and by the House. I am not at all sure that, with Parliamentary life as it is today, with all the Committees there are, hon. Members would want another Select Committee on Service discipline at the same time. I quite agree that there are many things in the Act that are out of date, but the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East knows as well as I do that many of them are amended by regulations, and that they are being interpreted today in the spirit of the times.
I do not want to detain the House, but I must say something about works. It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) and the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. J. Edwards) that the amount devoted to works today is about £1½ million less than last year. The main element in the decrease is the fall of £1¼ million in airfield expenditure, because the large programme of extensions and lengthening of runways is now nearly at an end. At the same time. I admit, as I know my hon. Friend will, that we have not made the progress with works that we would have wished. My hon. Friend is quite certain that the figure in Subhead B of £8¼ million is now a thoroughly realistic figure. It will be seen in Vote 10 that we have increased the sum for modernisation of shore establishments. We are starting this year on a programme costing nearly £500,000. It will be seen that although the sum is modest, as the hon. Member

for Devonport pointed out, we are making greater provision this year for reconstruction in the dockyards.
The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and, I think, the hon. Member for Stepney asked whether the Royal dockyards were fully employed. We are doing everything in our power to use the Royal dockyards to capacity. The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham said that outside painters were being employed in the dockyard. Although I will inquire into that matter, it would seem that it would be because the dockyard painters were already fully employed.

Mr. W. J. Edwards: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say anything about new buildings in the dockyards?

Commander Noble: No, but we try to strike a happy balance between new building and repair work. I think it is true to say that there is some new building going on in each dockyard.

Mr. Foot: The hon. and gallant Gentleman chided me for not having taken into account the provision for new machinery which was allocated in Vote 8. He mentioned a figure of £7 million which was to be spent on the programme over a number of years. I should be grateful if he would tell me exactly where, in Vote 8, I can see reference to that £7 million.

Commander Noble: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understood what I said. I think that he will give me the point that we are making an increased contribution, though a small one, on Vote 10. What I said about Vote 8 was that we were starting a programme of £7 million to be spread over a period of four years, and we aimed to spend £1 million of that in 1954–55. Perhaps I could show the hon. Gentleman afterwards exactly where it is mentioned.
We have always regretted, as I know have the previous Government, that we have had to delay this dockyard work. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that rapid rearmament had to come first. I do not think that we have ever been accused of wasting our dockyard machines. There is a story of a firm who


visited one of our dockyards and there they found one of their machines which they thought was the first one they had ever made. They asked whether they could have it for their museum. Their Lordships replied, as only they could, by saying that the request had been noted and would be reconsidered when the useful life of the machine had been completed.
I must mention the closed period, about which many hon. Members feel very deeply. My right hon. Friend announced the reasons for the change in a Parliamentary answer. It came about through the one week holiday becoming a two weeks' holiday, with greater dislocation of work. Another reason is that it has been done to enable maintenance to be carried out. The saving should be about one week's output. My right hon. Friend has said that everybody has agreed to do it for this year, and he will listen to anything anybody has to say next year. He will most certainly consider the matter again then.
Married quarters abroad come under Vote 10. The hon. Member for Stepney will agree that not so much is being spent on those abroad because the large schemes are coming to an end. I have seen married quarters in Singapore and Hong Kong. They are first-class. The wife of one young rating told me that they were "delicious." Under Vote 15, under the new Act, £9,250,000 will be spent mainly on married quarters in the home ports, but, obviously, the new programme will take some time to get started.
This has been a very wide debate, as, of course, these debates should be. Some important contributions have been made. My right hon. Friend has announced some important changes and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have raised many issues, from the future of the Navy to details of day-to-day life afloat. I have tried to answer some of them. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) talked about the Royal Yacht. He made allegations which he said were based on hearsay—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman is asleep."]—He can read what I say in the OFFICIAL REPORT. That is not my information. I suggest that he should try to find out details and send them to me.
I would say once again that we do mean it in the Admiralty when we say that any point I have not answered will

certainly be studied. I think this debate has thrown into relief that the Navy has been going through a difficult transitional stage both in men and materials, and I am quite sure that the result will be a Navy of which this country and this House can be proud.

Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1954–55

Vote A. Numbers

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That 139,000 officers, seamen and boys and Royal Marines, who are borne on the books of Her Majesty's ships and at the Royal Marine establishments, and members of the Women's Royal Naval Service and the Naval Nursing Service, be employed for the Sea Service, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1955.

4.56 a.m.

Mr. Swingler: I want to draw the attention of the Committee, as I did on the Air Estimates, to a point which I think is of some importance before we proceed to vote the men for the Royal Navy. In these debates on the Services and in the White Papers concerned it has been said that Her Majesty's Government needs a policy of Commonwealth co-operation and that there is no attempt within the organisation of the Commonwealth countries and N.A.T.O. to share out the burden of manpower which is to be borne by the countries concerned. In this we should bear in mind the great sacrifices which the men and women of this country have made in two world wars, and the physical bombardment and damage suffered here by comparison with other countries.
That leads ordinary citizens frequently to inquire why it is in these years just after the Second World War that the Services of this country use so much greater a proportion of the manpower than those of our allies; how it is that there is continual talk of the equality of sacrifice, that this is the only one of the countries which has so long a period of National Service as two years and which carries so large a proportion of its manpower into the military services. When this is mentioned it is sometimes denied, and it


was, on a recent occasion, denied by an hon. and gallant Gentleman on the other side of the House, who claimed, for example, that the Commonwealth countries raised very substantial forces to contribute to the allies and the North Atlantic Treaty countries.
I should like to point to the facts in trying to follow the policies being pursued by the Commonwealth countries, most of whose Governments refuse to adopt conscription at all. I recognise that it is their own business and policy. Most of them, as in the case of the Australian Government, consider not more than 30 days a year is necessary for the purpose of conscription, whereas this country maintains a period of two years' National Service for its young men, with considerable reserve liabilities. It has also a longer period of conscription than any of its Western European allies.
As a result of that, we find a larger proportion of our population in the Services than is the case in any of the Commonwealth countries. So that these facts shall be placed on record, so that we may have no further disputation here about the situation, I should like to give these facts regarding the Navy. Today.27 per cent, of the total population of this country is in the Royal Navy. In the case of Australia, the figure is.16 per cent; in the case of Canada 10 per cent; in the case of New Zealand 18 per cent, and in the case of South Africa 006 per cent.
I hope that those figures, which prove that this country has at least twice the manpower in the Forces in relation to its total population compared with all the other Commonwealth countries, dispose of any idea that there has been any success in the policy of Commonwealth co-operation from the point of view of an equal distribution of the manpower burden.
The citizens of this country are entitled to know that it is part of the policy which is now approved by the majority of the House of Commons that this country should continue to pursue a policy of raising a much bigger proportion of military manpower than any of its allies, and we, in spite of the protestations of Ministers from time to time,

maintain this system of compulsory call-up whereas a very substantial number of the countries with which we are cooperating, and in particular the Commonwealth countries, rely entirely upon volunteer forces.
This fact is perhaps particularly relevant to the Royal Navy because that Service has always prided itself upon the volunteer element. It is, and should be, the policy of the First Lord to place the Royal Navy entirely on a volunteer basis. But we find today that the First Lord is now becoming increasingly dependent upon National Service men. One of the deplorable facts about the manpower in the Royal Navy with which we are confronted today is that next year it will have to depend more than it did last year on National Service men. I believe that some of the concessions announced by the First Lord today are a result of the deplorable decline in Regular recruitment which took place last year.
I think that all hon. Members, whatever their point of view may be on the question of National Service and whether it should be reviewed or reduced, are in favour of arresting this decline in Regular recruitment which is such a menace to the possibility of abolishing conscription. Personally, I am very doubtful whether piecemeal expedients such as those at present adopted by the Government will contribute towards that end.
We have had no opportunity of a full debate on the question of pay or on the White Paper, which was sprung on the House in the middle of the debate on Service emoluments, and which was produced by the Government for the purpose of attracting more Regular recruits in 1954 to the Navy and to the other Services in order to arrest this decline which now causes the Navy to rely more upon National Service men. I have in mind the idea, which I am sure the Service Chiefs desire, of an all-round increase in pay for the Regular Forces.

The Deputy-Chairman: A discussion on pay is not in order on this Vote, which merely deals with numbers.

Mr. Swingler: I thought, Sir Rhys, that as we were discussing manpower for the Navy—and one of the most important points today is how to get more Regular recruits for the Navy—the question of pay and the improvement in the pay of


certain ranks of the Navy for the purpose of attracting more recruits in 1954 was relevant. However, in view of your Ruling, I will leave that point and simply say that we are very much concerned with this subject which is really worthy of a separate debate, particularly in relation to the White Paper on Service Emoluments.
I express the hope, as we did in the debate on the Air Estimates, that the First Lord of the Admiralty will use his influence in the Government to see that Parliamentary time may be provided at an early opportunity for discussing the whole situation of Regular recruiting for the forces, the question of the distribution of National Service men, and the length of the period of service, because of the disproportionate burden of military manpower now being carried by this country.

5.5 a.m.

Mr. Mikardo: I judge from his demeanour that it is the First Lord who is preparing to reply to this short debate, and not the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary. I am encouraged by that fact to make one or two observations on Vote A in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman, unlike the Parliamentary Secretary, will reply to any analysis that is made of the Votes that he has published.
I mentioned in an earlier debate that in some respects, in spite of the fact that the Estimates comprise a voluminous book of 319 pages, the layout seems to be inspired rather by a desire to disguise than to provide information. It is not always easy to get the information which the Estimates purport to be giving. This is particularly true of Vote 8. One of the difficulties is that the compilers of the Navy Estimates appear to be fond of what the Parliamentary Secretary a little while ago called a "wide racket" and like to put down a Jot of classifications and then, instead of showing the sterling amounts or the ship numbers in the case of Vote A, separately, for each classification, bracket a lot of them together.
To make the point clear, I refer the First Lord to page 9 and the section dealing with the Royal Marines, under which five classifications are listed: commissioned officers, quartermaster sergeants and sergeants, buglers and musicians, rank and file, and boy musicians. Of these five classifications,

only two figures are provided for numbers. A separate figure is provided for the commissioned officers, and then all the other four classifications are lumped together in a single bracket in order to give a global figure. That is not very helpful.
If page 9 were all that one had to rely upon, there would be no means of knowing that the 10,330 men who are covered by "quartermaster sergeants and sergeants, buglers and musicians, rank and file, and boy musicians," do not consist of one quartermaster sergeant, one sergeant, one bugler, one musician, one rank, one file, and 10,324 boy musicians. It is quite clear that the Admiralty has these figures separately, and, therefore, there is no reason why it should not publish them. If it is argued that the book would be twice as big if every classification were broken down, the short answer is that all the classifications are listed anyway, and the space has been taken up. Therefore, we might as well get the information.
If one troubles to go digging for it, one can get some of the information, because the magic figure of 10,330 appears again on page 11 and there is a small breakdown. It is shown that the 10,330 consists of five in the educational establishments, 74 staff for naval reserves, and 10,251 men. And so one can calculate that, somewhere between 10,251, who are men, and 10,330, which is the total, there are the boy reserves.
This same figure of 10,330 crops up again on page 14, from which it appears that of the 10,330 there are 10,254 quartermaster sergeants, colour sergeants —who appear for the first time—sergeants and other ranks, from which one can, by a piece of cross deduction between pages 9, 11 and 14, figure out how many of the total were musicians. What I suggest to the First Lord is that, when he next draws up the Estimates, he should not do them in the form of an Ellery Queen mystery magazine so that an item has to be picked out and followed backwards and forwards in order to get the required information.
While following through this information, I came across a point mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. W. J. Edwards), who pointed out in respect of the Royal Navy that the number of officers was increasing


in proportion to the number of petty officers, seamen and boys, and then added, "This is true to a lesser extent of the Royal Marines." My hon. Friend was understating his own case because, although the global numbers are smaller, it is truer of the Royal Marines than of the Royal Navy that there seems to be this concentration at the top of which my hon. Friend, with his experience, was afraid.
Comparing 1953–54 with 1954–55 one finds that, although the total of the quartermaster sergeants, sergeants, buglers and musicians, rank and file and boy musicians dropped by 810 over the year, the number of commissioned officers required to look after those 810 fewer quartermaster sergeants, etc., etc., is 25 pore than in the previous year, because instead of 11,140 men officered by 660 officers there are now to be 10,330 men officered by 685 officers.
To put the point simply, in order to practise what I preach and give the First Lord all the information and not a bit of it—which I hope he will give us next year—what has happened in the course of the year is that, whereas last year there were 59 commissioned officers per 1,000 other ranks, this year there are to be 66 commissioned officers per 1,000 other ranks. That is quite a sharp increase which does, as I suggested earlier, lend point to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney about the danger of getting over-concentration at the top, and I hope we shall have something said on that.
I want to know one other general point, which I think fairly comes within Vote A, because it reflects upon the number of people who will be required for welfare services, chaplaincy services and the like. I think there would need to be less expenditure of manpower in this direction if there were not some misunderstandings on the part of naval personnel about the relationship between themselves and their representatives in this Committee. We used to find that in all three Services some time ago, when men were under the misapprehension that there was some inhibition on a man in uniform writing to his Member of Parliament about some difficulty.
That seems to have disappeared from the Army and Air Force, but I am sorry

to tell the First Lord that, from my own experience with my own constituents, for some reason the impression is still widespread in the Royal Navy that it is an offence for a man to write to his Member of Parliament about something that is worrying him, and I have evidence of this. I believe this places an extra load of work upon the officers and chaplains of the Royal Navy who deal with welfare matters, and it is because of this that I say it affects the number of people in these classifications.
I wonder whether the First Lord, when he sums up this debate, will unequivocally tell us that, as far as the Service for which he is responsible is concerned, subject, of course, to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act and to any other reservations about the disclosure of secrets and of strategic information, it is open to any citizen of this country, even though he be in the Royal Navy, to communicate with his Member of Parliament without let or hindrance. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find himself able to say that.

5.15 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am not satisfied that we should pass Vote A, which means that we are sanctioning the call-up of 139,000 men for the Navy. I believe that this is excessive and beyond the reasonable demands of the Navy, particularly when they are being raised to some extent by conscription. I cannot see any justification for sending men to the Navy who would be more needed, for example, in housing and agriculture. I believe that it is a waste of manpower to take people away from housing schemes by methods of conscription in order to swell the ranks of the Navy.
We as a nation say that the miner is more needed for the production of coal than for being conscripted into the Armed Forces. We take the view that coal production should have a priority over the Services, and if we take the view that it is necessary for the coalminer to be at the coal face instead of in the Forces, then we can say the same about housing schemes and agriculture. There is a strong feeling in many parts of the country about the call-up of farm workers for the Armed Forces, including the Navy, and only recently I had two letters from farmers saying that they needed—

The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member is departing now from the Vote before the Committee.

Mr. Hughes: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Charles, but my argument was that the people are more needed on the land producing food than for sending these young men into the Navy to go to British Guiana.
There is only one paragraph in the Admiralty White Paper with which I can agree—that is to approve all the good work that has been done by the Navy in the Greek earthquake. I can add my tribute to the work done by the various ships in that earthquake and also in the Cyprus earthquake.

The Chairman: That is all very true, but the hon. Member should have made this in his previous speech on the general question.

Mr. Hughes: I wanted to say a good word for the Navy when I had the opportunity.
I cannot commend the work of the Navy in British Guiana. I submit that if the work of the Navy were different it would not need to undertake expeditions to British Guiana and it would not need 139,000 men. We are giving the Admiralty 139,000 men to authorise expeditions to places like British Guiana. There is a paragraph here about British Guiana and I submit that we need 139,000 men for expeditions of this kind. If we did not have policies such as those which the Government are carrying for suppressing free elections and democratic ways in British Guiana, there would be no need for so large a number of men.
Nor am I satisfied that we need 139,000 men in order to be prepared for a war against the navy of the Soviet Union. I could not quite follow the argument used by the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, who said we need all our Navy because the Russians had authorised a large expenditure in their navy.
How does he come to his calculations? It surely makes a very great difference to our estimate of Russian expenditure if we are talking in terms of the exchange value of the rouble, or its internal value; because so far as the exchange

value is concerned, that would only apply if we were proposing any financial trans actions to buy some Russian cruisers; and the internal value—

The Chairman: We are now dealing with the number of seamen and officers in the Royal Navy.

Mr. Hughes: Then, Sir Charles, I will again retreat to a defensive position in the rear; but I argue that we should not need so many men if we had an accurate assessment of what the Navy will have to meet and I say that the number of men is swollen by the strategy employed by the Government.
If that strategy means that we have to send aircraft carriers and cruisers to take part in a war in Korea—which I consider was a disastrous war which I do not wish to see repeated anywhere else, nor see British sailors sent to such another war— then we may need 139,000 men. But a quarter of that number is sufficient. The Navy is large because we have not yet liquidated the traditional policies of British imperialism.
I am perturbed about developments in different parts of the world, and I do not want to see a Navy such as we had when we bombarded Alexandria; I do not want to see the Navy taking an aggressive role. If there is any argument for the Navy going to different parts of the world it should be under the auspices of the United Nations. I cannot see how, by providing 139,000 men, with aircraft carriers and cruisers, and all the paraphernalia of modern war, that we are entitled to play any different, or any greater part, than some other countries in United Nations.
I therefore submit that this figure of 139,000 men is not justified in view of the role which the Navy should carry out at present; which is such work as rescuing people suffering as a result of earthquakes. I am not prepared to raise a large Navy to carry out imperialist adventures or doubtful wars to assist American imperialism.

The Chairman: That has been put several times and I must ask the hon. Member not to repeat it, because it is becoming tedious.

Mr. Hughes: I think the point has been sufficiently impressed on the Committee and I suggest that I have at least partially proved the case that we do not need such a large number of men.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) for attempting to pay a compliment to the Navy.
I will not keep the House for more than a minute, but I want to reply to two questions asked by the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo). He complained about the width of our bracket covering the figures in Vote A. He seemed to analyse them fairly well himself, but I will check the figures when I have read his speech and see whether they are correct. I will let him know the answer. We will see whether we can widen the figures in next year's Estimates.
The more important question he put was whether I thought sailors, as well as soldiers and airmen, realised that they had a right of appeal to their M. Ps. From the number of letters which the Civil Lord, the Parliamentary Secretary and I receive at the Admiralty from M. Ps. to whom sailors have written, I should think it is quite certain that they do. Although we hope that they will first use the usual channels, which are quicker, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every member of the Navy, as of the other two Services, is entitled to write to his Member of Parliament, just as is any ordinary citizen.

Mr. Mikardo: Thank you very much.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Resolution and ask leave to sit again."— [Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

5.27 a.m.

Mr. Foot: The Government should not have attempted to move to report Progress, because we have had a perfectly reasonable debate. I wanted to raise a number of items on the other Votes and they could have been dealt with expeditiously, as we dealt expeditiously with Vote A. I have several points to raise on Vote 10. It was clear that there were differences of opinion among hon. Members opposite as well as on this side of

the Committee and that further explanations were needed. We could have asked for them, and the Government could have given them, in the same way as that in which the First Lord answered the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo). It did not take long for those questions to be put and answered, and the same thing could have happened again. We could have dealt with the whole business in 15 or 30 minutes. Equally, on the Air Estimates, we could have dealt with the whole matter in half-an-hour instead of having such a long delay.
This is becoming a serious matter, because it is now accepted as orthodox and automatic policy to move to report Progress immediately after Vote A has been discussed, however long that discussion may have been. The main reason I ask the Committee not to accept the Motion is that it is wrong that it should be accepted as normal procedure, when Votes are put down on the Order Paper for discussion, that no discussion should be allowed. Votes 1, 2, 6, 9 and 10 are down, yet it is accepted as orthodox and automatic procedure that we should not be allowed to discuss them.
I presume that if the Government are to continue in this way we will never again have the right to discuss individual Votes. Why do the Government take that action? Why not follow the simple procedure: it would save time now, and would have saved time the other night. I am protesting against a procedure which will deny me the right, as a Member for a dockyard constituency, of discussing individual Votes on these Navy Estimates. Those rights will be taken away from the House in the years ahead. I know hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like me to protest, but if they were in Opposition and wanted to raise individual matters they would understand the point of principle that is involved. It is absolutely right that we should go on protesting until the Government recognises that an important principle is involved.
There is also a relevant point on this matter which raises a constitutional issue. At the beginning of his speech my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South said he wished to discuss some Committee points. We had discovered, while discussing the Air Estimates, that


we were deprived of the rights of dealing with Committee points on individual Votes just as we are being deprived of that right again today. When my hon. Friend mentioned that he would raise those points he was told by Mr. Deputy-Speaker, who was then in occupation of the Chair, that that was contrary to the procedure of the House, that it was against the Rules of Order that he should seek to discuss Committee points on the general debate.
That was the Ruling, and my hon. Friend had to alter the general course of his speech by saying that instead of discussing Committee points he would discuss points of detail. I would invite anyone who disagrees with me to look at Erskine May, I think it is on page 713 or thereabouts, where it is laid down that it is improper for anyone to discuss, on the Motion to report Progress, Committee points which should be properly discussed during the Committee stage later. If my hon. Friend was discussing Committee matters he was out of order on the Ruling contained in Erskine May.
We now come to the situation where my hon. Friend is deprived of the opportunity of discussing Committee points if he abides by the Ruling given by Mr. Deputy-Speaker and by the Ruling in Erskine May. By not making his points in the earlier debate he is deprived from making them at all, because the Government move to report Progress immediately after Vote A.

Mr. Swingler: We had this sort of thing last Friday morning. This Ruling in Erskine May was given before the new Guillotine procedure was introduced, a few years ago, and no specific Ruling has been given to amend it. It is clear that that Ruling is out of date because we have an entirely different situation because the Votes come under the Guillotine procedure.

Mr. Foot: I do not think that that makes any difference. Erskine May lays down a principle applying to any general debates, that in them Committee points are not discussed. It applies not only to debates on Service Estimates, but to debates on Second Readings of Bills. Anyone can see the obvious reason for it. We do not want debates on general principles cluttered up with Committee points.
Our complaint the other night, when we were debating the Air Estimates, as it is our complaint tonight, was that a Motion to report Progress would preclude discussion of matters in Committee. We could have had a full discussion in Committee of other matters, after the discussion of Vote A, had the Government not moved to report Progress. An important principle is involved against which the Government are offending by this procedure of theirs they are adopting. It is apparently to be taken as the normal course that the Government should move to report Progress once Vote A has been dealt with.
There is this aspect of the matter, too, that the Government move to report Progress without any argument in favour or any explanation of the Motion. They move the Motion tonight in the same peremptory way as they did the other night. It is a shocking procedure. In Committee on the Finance Bill, for instance, when the Government move this Motion, there is an explanation, such as that the debate has gone on long enough, or that such and such a matter will be considered by the Government in the interval, or that such a postponement will be convenient. But no such explanation is given in this instance.
Is the explanation that we have had an extensive debate of Vote A? Nobody can say that. We have had only three speeches plus a brief reply by the First Lord. No one can pretend there has been undue discussion of Vote A. Is the explanation that we had too long a debate on the original Question? Some hon. Members may think so, but it has always been a well-cherished right of hon. Members to have, if they want it. a long debate on Service Estimates.
Some hon. Members may not like the views of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but he has the same rights as other hon. Members, and the same right to express views on the Service Estimates. I do not think it can be the case of the Government that the discussion was too long. Besides, the debate on the Amendment was longer than such debates usually are, and we did not return to the more general debate until 10 o'clock instead of 9 o'clock or earlier, as we usually do on these occasions.
If anybody cares to check on those who have spoken in the debate he will find that there have been nearly as many speakers from the Government side of the House as there have been from this side. Therefore, if we take the case on the point of the length of time of the general debate, the length of time taken on the Amendment or on Vote A there are no grounds whatever for this Motion. That is probably the reason why the Government did not attempt to make any case for it. Certainly, on matters which involve the liberty of this House, as Erskine May indicates in the passage to which I have referred, or on matters which involve the procedure of the House, we should not be prevented from discussing these Votes—

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member is criticising the Ruling of the House when Standing Order No. 16 was altered on 28th July, 1948, under the new procedure for the Guillotine.

Mr. Foot: I am not seeking to criticise that decision, Sir Charles. It was a perfectly proper decision. I am not criticising the decision of the House that if, in fact, we carry the Motion to report Progress then the other items fall to the ground.
I am criticising the timing of Government's decision to report Progress. That is a different matter, because the procedure which lays it down that the Government can secure the Guillotine for these Votes is not justification for their deciding to do it now in these circumstances. I am protesting about that. If the Government are not even prepared to attempt to make a case for the action which they propose to the Committee. I do not see why we should have to agree to it.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order My hon. Friend has made repeated reference to the Ruling in Erskine May that detailed questions may not be raised in the general Estimates debate. May I submit that that Ruling comes down to us from the time previous to the introduction of the 1948 procedure, when the Committee and Report stages became subject to a time limiting factor? Therefore, it became necessary to have a much more prolonged discussion on the general

Estimates debate because it was impossible to have any prolonged discussion on the detailed Votes. It was inevitable under the Guillotine procedure that, as it was recognised at the time, some Members would be unable to speak and, obviously, some points could not be made.
I submit that because of that change in procedure the scope of the general debate was widened and it is right to say that we have been advised by Mr. Deputy-Speaker that we are permitted to raise detailed questions on the Votes in the general debate precisely because the Committee stage on those Votes would be limited. Therefore, the rule needs to be brought up to date and it is not correct to say that detailed questions may not be raised on the general Estimates debate. It is clear that if that is correct, then the right of hon. Members to raise questions on the Votes has been much more severely restricted than hon. Members thought by the introduction of the Guillotine procedure. I should like you, Sir Charles, to reconsider the whole question of Members being able to raise the sort of questions which they have always claimed the right to raise.

The Chairman: That is a matter of argument. It is quite clear under Standing Order 16, as it is now—and it was altered in 1948—that we have a general discussion; when Vote A has been reached the rest can be put through on the Guillotine. It is a Standing Order of the House and, therefore, we must stand by that.

Mr. Swingler: That is not my point, Sir Charles. My point was that with the introduction of the 1948 procedure the question is whether it is in order for detailed questions on the Votes to be raised in the general Estimates debates.

The Chairman: We know that Erskine May has been quoted, and if the general debate has taken place on moving the Speaker out of the Chair it cannot be repeated in Committee of Supply.

5.46 a.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I think there are some further issues here which do appear on the point my hon. Friend is making. Sir Charles. I am glad that we have the Leader of the House here, because a point emerges which I think needs his attention and that of the House. We


have got into a position where the rights of discussion of the House are to be unduly curtailed.
Erskine May says on page 713:
This power of general debate does not, however, sanction discussion in detail upon special subjects, which must be reserved until the grant for that special service is before the committee, such as the reorganisation of the controlling authorities over navy expenditure, or the tactics adopted during naval manoeuvres or an admiralty minute dealing with a court martial. After the general discussion has taken place, debate must be confined to the particular vote before the committee.
The Leader of the House will see the difficulty into which we are getting by the Government moving that we report Progress as soon as Vote A has been passed. The Government have to get Vote A, because when we go into Committee of Supply we have to do some business, and the least business they can do is to get Vote A.
We are getting to the position now where either hon. Members will seek to contrive to defeat the Rulings of the Chair in the general debate by raising particular issues on small matters— which, under Erskine May, as I have quoted, ought to be raised when they come to the particular Vote that we are discussing—either they are to be involved in a constant battle with you and your successors in the Chair, Sir Charles, as to whether something comes within Erskine May or not, in which case we shall have a very long general debate, or else we shall scramble through the general debate as quickly as we can so that we may assuage the passion of the Government Whips to get the debate over so that we can go on to detailed points.
We have tried to bring out a number of general principles in the debate tonight in the general discussion. If we are to have this process, which seems now to have started, of moving to report Progress when Vote A has been secured, it will mean that our general debates will be ragged, and that we shall have them interspersed with a number of detailed points that should more properly come at the consideration of the individual Votes.
We have not had the advantage of the presence of the Leader of the House— and I do not complain about that, be-

cause he has other duties to do—but I think he will find that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) said, the debate we have had throughout the night has gone one for one, I believe, with the exception of one very long speech from this side which I did not have the good fortune to hear. But, apart from that, I want the Leader of the House to accept my point of view that the discussion has been relevant and germane to the issues which confront it.
As I have said, it is the only debate on the Navy which we have every year. The Civil Lord makes one speech a year. He made a very agreeable one tonight. Although I am as anxious as anyone to get to bed, I do not think it is really too much that on a Vote like this, if some hon. Members on either side have points to raise, Ministers and Whips should be ready to hear them on the one night in the year on which they can raise such matters.
There has been considerable criticism of the Admiralty administration, some justified and some not, but I do not believe that it can fairly be said that points have been raised for the sake of raising them. I speak of the generality of the debate. I know the difficulties of the Chief Whip. He has to consider whether if he moves to report Progress he might lose more time on the discussion of the Motion than if the Committee were to work through the Votes.
There are some real points here which hon. Members wanted to raise. On the Vote dealing with the victualling and clothing of the Navy there is the very important question of naval uniforms. Seamen's uniforms have been under discussion for a long time. No one has raised it on a general debate. I would point out to the Leader of the House that it will encourage hon. Members to discuss the Motion to report Progress at undue length if they feel that there is to be no opportunity of raising perfectly proper points on which people desire information on the detailed Votes.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to reconsider this process to which we seem to be subjected at the present time. Perhaps he has not fully appreciated that it cuts out a great deal of discussion. I hope that he will make a short statement on why he thought it necessary to report Progress at this stage.

5.54 a.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Hairy Crookshank): I accept the responsibility on behalf of this side of the Committee, and if the hon. Gentleman asks me why we moved to report Progress the answer is that it is because we have had a long debate on this topic. No one can pretend that a debate which lasts until 5.30 in the morning from 4 o'clock the previous afternoon is not a long debate.
While I accept from the hon. Gentleman that the speeches have been one for one, I gather that two-and-a-half hours more have been taken up by hon. Members opposite than by hon. Members on this side. I do not complain, but it puts the matter into slightly different perspective.
As I understand it, it would be in order to raise these points of detail during the general debate. We are doing nothing unusual at all. After all, 1948 was a period of time when the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were in office. Therefore, if any changes were made in 1948, those of us on this side now can hardly be held responsible for that. It was the arrangement then made, though I hasten to add that it has been accepted by us since and has become part of the procedure of the House.
As I understand, the reason why all Votes are put down is in case, if I may use the term, the debate fizzles out and time is available for specific points. But no one can say that a debate which has lasted until half-past five in the morning has fizzled out. I do not think that even the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) would say that. This has been done in other years. It is nothing new. I have not looked it up, but I think the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East will find that after Vote A had been obtained, this procedure happened in the time when his party were in office, just as it is happening now.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It was done under the Labour Government.

Mr. Crookshank: It is the normal practice.
Although I have not heard all the debate today—I cannot always listen to every debate—my right hon. Friend tells me that it has been a good and useful debate. But there comes a period when

it ceases to be good and useful, and gets rather long and is not quite of so much value to us all.
I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will realise that we are not doing anything at all unusual. We are adopting the procedure which our predecessors adopted in the light of the changes in 1948. We have had a good debate. There is a Report stage to the Service Estimates, and any important points can be brought out then. I hope, therefore, that taking everything into consideration, the House will now be prepared to agree to the Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

5.58 a.m.

Mr. Mikardo: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Mikardo: Those hon. Members who groan are perfectly at liberty to go home. Most of them have spent very little time in the Chamber during the debate.
For what one voice is worth, I am bound to oppose the Motion to report Progress. Indeed, I am reinforced in something I was about to say in support of that opposition by what the Lord Privy Seal has just said. I accept his point that this is not something that is made by the Opposition against the Government. He is perfectly right in saying that the Government which preceded his party in office did precisely the same thing. But this is a point which has to be made for the back benches on both sides against the Front Benches on both sides.
It is, of course, the incentive of Front Benches, and especially of Whips' offices, always to get the business of the House through as quickly as possible, and if, in the course of doing, that they inhibit the possibilities open to private Members to query the expenditure of Governments, they do not worry very much about that. I put it to hon. Members opposite—those who are interested in the matter, not those who groaned like children just now; those interested in safeguarding the expenditure of the taxpayer's money—that one of these days they will be sitting on these benches, and doubtless they will feel just as sore about the situation as we do at present. They are very shortsighted if they now


acquiesce in this steamrollering of the Service Estimates through the Committee.
It is true, as the Lord Privy Seal said, that this procedure has gone on for five years, but one always ought to be willing to review a situation in the light of the experience of the years. Like my hon. Friend, I do not blame the Lord Privy Seal for not being present throughout, for he has other responsibilities, but he has missed seeing that we have had during this long night's debate at least one example of the fact that the procedure is not working out as it was expected to work out. It was expected when the procedure was introduced that people who had detailed points to make or to inquire about on the Votes, other than those which would be discussed in full, would be able to make their points and ask their questions during the general debate. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman said that in almost as many words.
What has become apparent during the night is that, first, there is—I put it no higher than this—some question about whether it is in order to put detailed points during the course of the general debate. Second it has transpired that even if it is in order to ask questions en masse during the general debate, it is extremely difficult for the spokesman of the Government, faced with this pile-up of detailed questions in the middle of general debate, to do anything worth while to answer them.
The First Lord has said with his characteristic courtesy that anything the Government could not get around to answering, because of the pile up and because they had not had and could not have notice, they would answer afterwards as best they could in correspondence with those hon. Members who raised the matters. Now let us have a look at these two questions: first, whether one can raise detailed questions in the general debate, and, secondly, whether one will get replies to them even if one does raise them.
On the first question, there have not only been some differences evinced between my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and Devonport (Mr. Foot), but there have been differences evinced—if I may say this without getting right out of order and

right into trouble—between the occupants of the Chair at different periods during the debate, because at one stage we were told quite categorically that it was improper to raise in the general debate not merely Committee points but points of detail.
Now, I put it to the Lord Privy Seal, with all respect—and I am not just trying to make a debating point—that, if that rule were to hold, the theory that we could raise detailed points during the course of the general debate and, therefore, it does not matter if after a lapse of a considerable number of hours all the Votes other than Vote A were guillotined, we no longer hold water.
On the second question, during the course of what I admit was an over-long speech—although the First Lord will be the first to say it was not a speech which wasted any words or introduced any irrelevant matter whatever; it took an hour but dealt with 17 points, which is only 3½£ minutes per point—I put 17 questions to the Government. There was no attempt made to answer a single one of them. The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, in winding up the debate, did not refer to a single one of those questions. I do not altogether blame him. As I said earlier, he had no notice of them; some of them were detailed points, and he was obviously taken aback at the idea that any hon. Member had read this 319 page document, and so he was not prepared.
The situation, therefore, is that, even if it is in order to raise points on Votes 1 to 15 during the course of the general debate—which seems to be in question— for one reason or another, either because the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary cannot be bothered, or cannot find out, or does not know, one does not get any reply to questions anyway. That is precisely the situation which would arise if, in the course of a Second Reading debate on a Bill, an hon. Member tried to introduce a lot of detailed points. We are in this difficult situation, that the procedure has not worked out in practice as it was expected to in theory.
Though the hour is advanced, and even though those hon. Members who have arrived last in the Chamber are complaining most bitterly about the length of the debate, even though it seems to be held as a reproach by the


Lord Privy Seal that the Opposition have been two and a half times as assiduous in looking after the expenditure of money as the Government side of the Committee, I do not see how it can be held that it is now proper to curtail all discussion on 15 of the 16 Votes included in these Estimates. That is why I think the Government are unjustified in asking the Committee to agree to the discussion being brought to an end.

6.5 a.m.

Mr. Swingler: I do not think we should discuss this very much further, because I feel it is to be submitted to a higher authority. The Leader of the House has referred us to what was said in 1948. I remember well the assurances which were given then. It was that we were applying a Guillotine procedure to the Votes, but it would be admissible to discuss all the details in the general debate.
The only trouble about that is that that has not been applied by the Chair. The Leader of the House would not realise that because he has not been able to attend all our debates, but we have had the experience during these debates on the Estimates of hon. Members being ruled out of order for raising detailed points and being told that those points could be raised on a certain Vote, although it is clearly known by everyone that the Government will report Progress after Vote A so that the other Votes come under the Guillotine procedure. That is quite fantastic. We do not know where we are.
Some hon. Members try to discuss what Erskine May calls special subjects on the general debate, and other Members are ruled out of order when they tried to raise details on the Votes. The assurance that we were given when this new form of procedure was introduced— a reform to expedite Government business—simply has not been fulfilled. I hope that as a result of these discussions the whole of this procedure will be looked at again so that we can have a clear Ruling from the Chair whether or not it is in order to discuss details on the Votes put down in the general Esti-

mates debate. The Leader of the House has told us just now that it is in order, but we had an earlier Ruling from the Chair that it was not. The assurance given in 1948 was that we would be allowed to do so. Today, we do not know what the position is and what the result will be. Hon. Members feel frustrated and prevented from raising points of detail on the Votes with the result that our proceedings are prolonged by a procedural wrangle.

The Chairman: I think that the trouble is that the second paragraph on page 713 of Erskine May has not been amended to bring it into line with the new Standing Order. There is a certain contradiction in what is stated there. That is my opinion. There is a certain amount of confusion, but I think if the sixth, seventh and eighth lines were taken out it would bring the paragraph into line with the new procedure.

Mr. Callaghan: We are most grateful to you, Sir Charles, for what you have said, because the point put by my hon. Friends is a point of substance. I see by the notes on page 713 that the Rulings given are dated 1886, 1889, and 1893–4, and I am sure that we should all be grateful if you could have this matter reconsidered, so that we may be able to know what is in order in matters of detail in these debates.

The Chairman: Perhaps on the Army Estimates, which are coming later in the week, we will ignore the lines I spoke of and on the general debate points of detail can be gone into. Then, at the end, when we go into Committee on Vote A, we will have discussed earlier most of the points which can be raised.

Mr. Swingler: We are all grateful to you, Sir Charles. I would ask the Leader of the House whether this is a matter which might be considered through the usual channels, as it appears to me that there is some contradiction in the Standing Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be received this day.

Committee to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — HARROGATE ROAD, BRADFORD (SPEED LIMIT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Vosper.]

6.10 a.m.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: It is very late, and I will not delay the House, but the case which I want to place before the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, to whom I apologise, is one in which he may be able to assist.
I am trying to get an argument settled; an argument which has been going on in the City of Bradford since 1947. It refers to the speed limit on a length of main road which lies between St. John's church, Greengates, and the city boundary in Apperley Lane—a length of over half a mile. This is a widish road but it cannot be termed, from a motorist's point of view, a good road. It has several awkward bends, and a bridge which is insufficient for fast moving heavy traffic.
Under the Road Traffic Act, 1934, this road was automatically restricted because it had street lighting and it was regarded as a built-up area under the provisions of that Act. In 1936, following certain representations made by the Corporation, and others, a public inquiry was held for considering whether any change should be made in the classification of this road so far as restriction was concerned. At that inquiry, among those who objected to the proposal to derestrict the road, were the deputy-town clerk, the city engineer, and the chief constable, together with the Cyclists' Touring Club, Those who supported the proposal to derestrict were the A.A. and the R.A.C.
I asked my hon. Friend's predecessor if I might have a look at the report of the proceedings of the public inquiry, but was very surprised to learn that it was not the custom to make the report of such proceedings available, even to an hon. Member of this House. But I leave that point. I was, however, surprised to find that the Minister decided, following the inquiry, that the area was not to be regarded as built-up and, therefore, the main criterion for the imposition of a speed limit was not fulfilled under the 1934 Act. The Minister made an order

for derestriction, and that order was made against the wishes of the Bradford City Council, and against the wishes of the residents in the area.
The main part of my case is to suggest to my hon. Friend that the situation has changed very much since 1936 and that the road traffic conditions which obtained then certainly do not obtain now. I argue that the case for the re-imposition of the speed limit is very much stronger now than it was then. There has been considerable industrial development adjacent to the road since 1936. Factories have been extended and I believe one or two new establishments have been built. In addition, many new houses have been built in the districts of Greengates and Eccleshill, which has led inevitably to an increase in both vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic.
This road is one of the main outlets from the City of Bradford to the countryside and, particularly at week-ends, many thousands of people use the road on their way out of the city. In 1936, the traffic density, as stated at the inquiry, was 200 vehicles an hour. If it was 200 then, it surely must be much more today.
In recent years many representations have been made by the city corporation to the Minister concerned and many other representations have been made by firms and residents in the area to Members of Parliament and the Corporation. I have here a petition praying that the speed limit be reimposed. It is signed by 1,175 residents of that district. At the conclusion of the debate I will hand it to my hon. Friend. The petition came from the residents in the area and was sponsored by the Community Association.
This stretch of road has an appalling accident record. I will show, by giving the figures, that it cannot be regarded as anything but a death trap. The record of accidents from 1st January, 1947, to 17th December, 1953, shows that out of 67 accidents, six people were killed and 50 injured. These facts are causing the gravest concern to many thousands of people who live in that neighbourhood. I suggest to my hon. Friend that the position should be reviewed. The previous decision should be withdrawn and the matter should be regarded as serious and urgent.
At a meeting on 18th December, 1953, the Bradford Watch Committee passed


a minute relating to this matter, the latter part of which reads:
Resolution: That in view of the increasing road traffic this Committee are strongly of the opinion that a 30 miles per hour speed limit ought to be imposed on the portion of Harrogate Road from St. John's Church Greengates to the City Boundary in Apperley Lane, and that the Town Clerk be instructed again to press the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation to make an Order under Section 1 (6) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, revoking the existing Order.
My object in raising the matter now is to enable my hon. Friend to state publicly either that he is prepared to advise his right hon. Friend to set up another inquiry into the matter, or that he has considered it and is prepared to recommend the Minister to make the order as suggested in the city corporation minute.
I have had a long argument with the Department on this matter. I must say I was disappointed, when I took it up with the previous Parliamentary Secretary, to find that the protests of local people who should know the situation were treated with scant courtesy and that the decision and opinion of the corporation was flouted in a manner which I think is regrettable when considering a matter of local importance and interest. I will not delay the House another moment. I hope that my hon. Friend will have good news for me to take back to Bradford as a result of my raising the matter today.

6.24 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I fully understand the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. W. J. Taylor) in wishing to bring before the House the desires of the great city he represents that the derestriction of this road in 1936 should be cancelled. He has accurately stated the position. Under Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, provision is made for the application of the speed limit in built-up areas, and for the removal of speed limits in the case of roads which are not in built-up areas, even though they may be in urban areas.
My hon. Friend has devoted his attention to the Harrogate Road from St. John's Church, Greengates, north to the old city boundary, which was mainly de-

restricted by the Minister after a local inquiry in 1936. I might say he might have been raising the matter of Apperley Lane, but I understand that he is raising the case of Harrogate Road.

Mr. Taylor: I am dealing with that section of the road to the city boundary up to Queen's Hotel in Apperley Lane and over the bridge to the city boundary.

Mr. Molson: There have been two city boundaries, the old and the new, and I was not sure whether my hon. Friend was referring to the old stretch of the road, which is about 1,000 yards. In our view that area cannot properly be described as a built-up area. I have furnished myself with a map drawn by the surveyor of the city council in 1947. It is true that there are a certain number of buildings close to the road, but they are chiefly of an industrial character. There are not a large number of residential houses, and certainly there can be no question of any development in depth.
My hon. Friend referred to the unfortunate record of this road for accidents. It is true that there have been a considerable number of accidents but, with the possible exception of one, we do not find that they can possibly be attributed to excessive speed. My figures are not precisely the same as those of my hon. Friend because they cover a different period of time. From 24th July, 1951, to 1st March, 1954, there were two fatal accidents, one of which involved a pedestrian and might possibly have been due to excessive speed. The other involved a motor cyclist and passenger, but the cause of that accident is not known because there are no witnesses surviving.
There were five injury accidents, one of which involved a pedestrian who fell while pushing a carriage; one involved a cyclist who skidded; two involved private cars, and were found to be due to carelessness; and one was due to a defect in the vehicle concerned. In addition, there were 15 non-injury accidents reported during this period, seven of which were caused by dogs on the carriageway.
Apart from the fatal accident I have referred to, there is no case in which it can be said with any assurance that excessive speed was even a contributory factor in these accidents. Much the same applies in the other lengths of road


in Apperley Lane, where there were two injury and seven non-injury accidents. One injury was caused by a pedal cyclist losing control, and the other involved a motor cycle and was due to the slippery conditions on the road, for it was winter and the road was covered with snow and ice. Therefore, while I freely admit there have been a large number of accidents upon this road it is not, as far as I can see, the case that they have been due to motor vehicles travelling at an excessive speed.
My hon. Friend suggested that, because the local authority was anxious for a speed limit to be restored, that in itself was the reason why my right hon. Friend should cancel the derestriction order. We find that if restrictions are imposed on lengths of road which are really not so built up as to make the motorist feel that a safety limit is justifiable the restrictions are ignored by drivers. I saw only a short time ago a remarkable graph of the Road Research Laboratory showing that restriction on a road that is not built up virtually has no effect at all upon the speed at which motorists drive.
We believe, therefore, that in the general interests of the country as a whole, and to ensure that restrictions, where they are applied, are treated with respect, it is extremely important that there should not be restrictions in cases where they are not really necessary. In a recent debate in another place Lord Lloyd said in response to several representations that my right hon. Friend believed that many cases of existing speed limits were unreasonable, and that the

Minister is considering the possibility of a review. It really would not be consistent with a policy of this kind for us to restore a speed limit on a road of this sort where we are not really persuaded that it is necessary.
However, as a result of my hon. Friend's representations, we have looked carefully at the accidents that have happened. It appears that an unduly large proportion of these accidents have taken place after dark. Out of a total of 31 personal injury and other accidents on the two stretches of road, no fewer than 18 occurred after dark. It may, therefore, be that the street lighting on this road, which is rather old-fashioned—it is, in fact, the old-fashioned type of gas mantle lighting on columns 15 feet in height— should be examined. It is certainly not up to the standard which my Department likes to see. I will gladly undertake that we will discuss with the Bradford City Council the question of whether this unhappy accident record is not due to the old-fashioned and unsatisfactory lighting upon the road.
I hope that I have persuaded my hon. Friend that it would not really be justifiable or in accordance with our general policy to reimpose the speed limit.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the trouble he has taken to give me such a detailed reply.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes to Seven o'Clock a.m., Wednesday, 10th March.